January 3, 2008
Mary Schaeffer, Finance Director, email@example.com
Arkansas Director, Roger Schnyer firstname.lastname@example.orgCalifornia Director, Jan Dykema email@example.comIllinois Director, Elizabeth Pensgard firstname.lastname@example.orgIndiana Director, Charles Coffman email@example.comIowa Director, Leisa Boysen firstname.lastname@example.orgMississippi Director, Dan Crutchfield email@example.comNevada Director, Ken Sondej firstname.lastname@example.orgOhio Director, Tiffany Skotnicky email@example.comOklahoma Director, Jade Harris firstname.lastname@example.org
Tennessee Director, Gina Cotton email@example.com
Texas Director, Alvin Crow firstname.lastname@example.org
9/25/2007 Request to reprint TOOLS FOR THE ENDANGERED DOG OWNER from Denise Groenwald, President GSDC of North Georgia -Permission granted
December 17, 2007
No matter if you choose to give a home to a shelter dog, or to a pure-bred do your homework. Ask all of the right questions so that both you and your new dog are happy with each other. A dog is a commitment of your time, an investment of your money, and a responsibility for the entirety of the dog’s life.
Most people do not see sixteen years or more stretching out before them when they fall in love with a cute puppy. They only think in the here, and now. Be aware that the beautifully groomed, and impeccably mannered dogs that you see on Animal Planet’s televised dog shows are the products of many generations of selective breeding for stable temperament, intelligence, trainability, and sound healthy body structure. The owners put intensive training, socialization, and meticulous grooming into the dogs to bring them to this example of perfection. Each breed of pure-bred dogs were developed for a particular purpose. Working dogs, sporting dogs, field dogs, terriers, and most hound breeds are high energy, and need lots of exercise.
Select a dog that suits your life style, just as you would select an automobile. If you have a large family, a two seat roadster might make your heart yearn, but it would not be a practical family car. If you have a tiny city apartment a Scottish Deerhound isn’t recommended. Consider not only your lifestyle, but also the dog’s needs. Once you have decided upon a pure-bred dog, next choose a breeder. Take your time. Look for the right person. The one with whom you feel comfortable, one who doesn’t try to rush you into a sale, but reassures you that if you are willing to wait he/she will be willing to work with you to be sure you get exactly the puppy that you want. Do not be in a hurry. Be as selective in choosing a dog as you would be buying any other large ticket item. You will be paying for the dog for the entirety of its life. Think of it as a long term investment of the heart, and wallet.
Pure-bred dogs from reputable breeders come with a registration paper, a pedigree, a shot record, a worming record, a health certificate, and a written contract/guarantee.
If you have decided to open your home, and heart to a shelter dog be just as cautious. Shelters being not for profit corporations do not have to meet the same health requirements as do private dog breeders. They can, and do import animals from China, Romania, the Middle East, the Caribbean, and Mexico.(1) These dogs do not have to meet the same quarantine requirements for importation that do the dogs that are bought by private individuals from foreign breeders. In fact shelters are being shut down all over the USA from out of control diseases from imported strays brought in to fill the empty cages.(2) Rabies is a concern.
Although the Center For Disease Control issued a press report claiming to have eradicated rabies in domestic pets in the USA, an 11 year old California boy died from a strain of rabies that there were no medical protocols to treat.(3) Be sure to ask where the dog originated, and try to get proof that the dog is healthy, and has been socialized..(4) Try to obtain as much information as possible. The health, and safety of yourself, and your family comes first. Shelters do not have to guarantee the dog’s health, or temperament, or your safety.
(1) TUFTS: FILLING EMPTY DOG POUNDS (FROM 02-06-03) http://enews.tufts.edu/stories/020603FillingEmptyPounds.htm
Pet Underpopulation: The Pet Shortage in the US by Laura Baughan
(2) Dog imports raise fears of a resurgence of disease http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-10-21-dog-imports_N.htm
Outbreak of Drug-Resistant Salmonella at an Animal Shelter http://www.animalsheltering.org/resource_library/magazine_articles/nov_dec_2004/outbreak_of_drug-resistant_salmonella.html
Disease shuts animal shelter (Las Vegas) http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2007/Feb-10-Sat-2007/news/12517017.html
(3) Rabies Treatment Saves One, Does Not Work for All http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,267191,00.html
Human Rabies — Indiana and California, 2006 http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5615a1.htm
(4) 8 Things You (Probably) Didn’t Know About Dog Shelters http://www.toybreeds.com/animalshelters.htm
ABC NEWS: 300,000 Imported Puppies Prompt Rabies Scare
Cherie Graves, chairwoman Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States
P.O. Box 1406
Newport, WA 99156
15 December 2007 Recently Amber, a California Healthy Pets Act blogger new to the scene (and to California) wrote “Bill Hemby Chairman of PetPAC has lied so many times about AB1634 California’s Healthy Pets ACT that we lost count.” Since my curiosity was piqued, I thought I would click on the link. What to my wondering eyes did appear but a sad-faced doggie behind bars with a message “HE NEEDS OUR HELP.”Now, that’s a surprise. It is a similar sad-faced doggie just like the ones “used” by the Humane Society of the United States when they are soliciting for their donation du jour. We all know by now the woman-behind-the-man-behind-the-bill, but please add PETA and the Humane Society of the United States to the list of organizations working fast and furious behind the scenes of California Assembly Bill 1634 to remove Fluffy and Fido from the family photo! ‘Tis the season so I read on. New blogger (obviously drinking kool-aid from the California Healthy Pet punchbowl) writes: “LET’S SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT.” Imagine my disappointment when new blogger failed to accomplish her goal. She presented “lies”. She presented “facts”. She did NOT present the truth!! Since I had some time on my hands between decorating the tree and wrapping presents for my dog’s extensive list of canine friends, I thought “I” would help to set the record straight. I did have to take a break or two to pop more non-vegan cookies into the oven and slice a ham for our holiday gathering with friends this evening, but the importance of setting the record straight kept my fingers busily clicking away on the keyboard. New blogger is most concerned with the nature of PetPAC. Perhaps new blogger needs to delve more deeply into the nature of Social Compassion in Legislation instead, a key supporter of AB1634. Principals are Judie Mancuso, her husband Rolf Wicklund, Jane Garrison, and her husband (the chiropractor?) Mark Garrison. I do think a few of those names are PETA-esque. I wonder if they are on Ingrid Newkirk’s and Wayne Pacelle’s Christmas card lists. (Is Christmas a vegan holiday?) Why does Social Compassion in Legislation want to be just a figurehead supporter asking for donations (“click to donate”)? Wouldn’t you think they would want financial contributors to know all about their good works so that those potential contributors could delve deeper into their pockets this holiday season and SEND MONEY? If you have free time, google Social Compassion in Legislation. You will find bubkus! [also spelled bubkes or bupkis … means you will find “nothing at all”] I thought I would share some further insight into the “coalition”. By the way, I have heard on numerous occasions by Ms. Mancuso that “hers” is a Republican coalition. Do you honestly think the puppies and kitties care if you vote Democrat or Republican? A recent press event held in Los Angeles by Lloyd Levine and “legendary” television star Bob Barker and members of the coalition informed one and all of the return of this blithering bill. Senators have had to ask Santa for fax machines throughout the State to accommodate the ensuing piles of SUPPORT or OPPOSITION faxes soon to arrive with the New Year. The Associated Press had another report recently (14 Dec) that I thought I would share with you: “PRICE WAS RIGHT, BUT THE CAR WAS WRONG, CONTESTANT SAYS” According to a lawsuit filed this week in Los Angeles Superior Court, in June 2004, a contestant on “The Price Is Right” guessed that a sports car was worth $33,495 and left the stage thinking she had just won a new 2004 Pontiac GTO Coupe. In her lawsuit against the game show, CBS Broadcasting, the auto dealership that provided the vehicle and the transportation company that delivered it, the contestant alleges the GTO Coupe she received was not new, as she had been promised, and had been in an accident. When she took the car, which arrived in her home state of Washington in September 2004, in for service the next year, she was told that it had suffered structural damage to the frame and front end, “but the repair work was such that an obvious effort had been made to conceal or hide the damage.” OOPS! For full text of above referenced AP article, please click here:
Okay, where was I? Oh, I remember. Back to setting the record straight. Let’s chat awhile about pet overpopulation. Do you know that there is actually a SHORTAGE OF ADOPTABLE DOGS in the United States? Let me repeat for those AB1634 “supporters” who might be reading challenged. There is actually a SHORTAGE OF ADOPTABLE DOGS in the United States!! Do you know that there is a prison program offered by the Marin Humane Society? Oh, I see a potential problem looming. Perhaps the California Healthy Pet “supporters” are geographically challenged and are NOT aware that the Marin Humane Society is located in CALIFORNIA!! Perhaps the California Healthy Pet “supporters” are NOT aware that the Marin Humane Society is located in NOVATO, CALIFORNIA, only 100 miles from Santa Cruz, CA, the sacred capitol of all things right with sheltering according to Assembly Member Lloyd Levine and the coalition. What’s that? You don’t remember Santa Cruz being a role model to emulate? Just this week it was announced in Santa Cruz County that their Animal Services Authority General Manager, Katherine Vos, was ousted! Loyal shelter workers staged a sickout. Both volunteers and employees were AFRAID TO SPEAK TO THE MEDIA … for fear of losing their jobs! Why is that? What could possibly be gleaned by this change in command in Santa Cruz? Someone wouldn’t be trying to “conceal or hide” anything, would they? In response to the article about Katherine Vos leaving Santa Cruz, I thought I would do a bit of my own homework. Here is some interesting information straight from the minutes of the Santa Cruz Board meetings: Dec 2007: It is announced that Animal Services Authority (ASA) General Manager, Katherine Vos, will leave in January 2008. [Was it politically motivated??? ] Let’s go back. April 2007: Newly appointed General Manager to the ASA, Katherine Vos, is introduced to the Board. May 2007: Lisa Carter, Executive Director of the SPCA, encouraged the board to endorse the California Healthy Pet Act, AB 1634. [This is the same woman who just happened to call-in to the recent KGO radio program with Judie Mancuso. Interesting how Lisa always gets on every radio program that Ms. Mancuso is doing. To be fair, KGO’s radio host did describe Lisa as “one of her dearest friends.”] To continue setting the record straight, the County of Santa Cruz took over animal-control services and the bulk of sheltering in 2002 amid a FINANCIAL SCANDAL at the local SPCA. The SPCA now serves as an advocacy and education group but does NOT handle shelters!! (see below) Financial scandal? Doesn’t handle shelters? OOPS! At the Board meeting in May, Ms. Carter passed out a copy of the California Healthy Pet Act and a list of sponsors and supporters. Please note the following: BOARD ACTION: The Board recommended staff put this item on the next agenda for a vote with a copy of the bill and a comprehensive analysis. [If Santa Cruz has been consistently touted as Lloyd Levine’s “model,” then wouldn’t they jump at the chance to support the bill? This appears odd to me.] Annette Hogue, Watsonville Shelter Volunteer wanted to show her support for the California Healthy Pet Act, AB 1634. Sammy Ettenger, SPCA, explained the difference in understanding of the California Healthy Pet Act, AB 1634. Lynne Achterberg, Project Purr, handed out their newsletter. [And “still” the Board took no action to “support” the bill despite the fact that Santa Cruz is the RECOMMENDED STATE ROLE MODEL for the California Healthy Pet Act?] Let’s look further. June 2007: BOARD ACTION: Take no action on the bill at this time. Board directed General Manager to draft a letter with comments in regards to Santa Cruz ordinance verses the AB1634 bill. [Even though “supporters” were pushing AB1634 down the throats of the Board members via feeding tube, the BOARD STILL TOOK NO ACTION!] Sept 2007: BOARD ACTION: Accept and file report and directed the ASA General Manager to bring back to the board an update on efforts made to decrease the euthanasia rates at the Santa Cruz County Animal Services Authority Shelters. [What’s this? Santa Cruz needs to DECREASE THEIR RATE OF EUTHANASIA? Do you think Lloyd Levine knows about this? Do you think Lloyd Levine cares? Let’s go a bit further down memory lane together, shall we? Gotta set the record straight!] May 2003: On April 26, 2003 through April 28, 2003, the Santa Cruz Sentinel published an expose of the issues surrounding the Santa Cruz SPCA and how it led to the creation of the ASA. In addition to the SPCA article of April 26th, an article regarding the status of the ASA and it’s role in the delivery of animal services was published. These articles have drawn considerable attention to the agency. OOPS!! An expose? Missing funds? Corruption? And shelter shutdown? Sept 2003: FIELD SERVICES: In late September, with a full complement of Animal Control staff on board, we will be refining our animal control dispatch services with a training day on the enhanced uses of our Chameleon animal control data base system. In addition to this training, our new clerk/dispatcher will be spending a day at NetCom learning some basic dispatch procedures that can assist us in our own operations. [Hmmmm….. This couldn’t be the same Chameleon animal control data base system that Ed Boks, General Manager at LA Animal Services and California Healthy Pets Act coalition member, is using, could it? Must be a coincidence. I do recall reading on a few occasions by another well-researched blogger that Chameleon is Ed’s software-of-choice for “cooking the books”! Not my choice of words but interesting nonetheless, eh?] Nov 2003: Accepted a report from the General Manager. Animal Control and shelter activity has continued to increase over prior months. In addition, there has been a noticeable increase in field activity such as animal biting incidents and barking dog complaints. [What’s this? Animal biting incidents? I didn’t think this was possible with spayed and neutered dogs according to Lloyd Levine and Judie Mancuso. Could this possibly mean that Santa Cruz is failing in accomplishing their goal? Santa Cruz canines nibbling on neighbors and chomping on the postman and the meter reader?] Here is more from the Board meeting in November 2003. The shelter has gained in traffic through the facility. The latter is reflected in the ASA’s increase in revenue generated in Humane Services, which included adoptions, reclaim fees and other shelter-related activities. Staffing has consistently presented a problem in our response to the workload created by this increase in shelter visits by the public. [It appears then that this is a “revenue generating” bill? Is that what Levine and Mancuso mean when they say “SAVE MONEY, SAVE LIVES”? Has Mr. Levine NOT read the part in the Santa Cruz Board meeting minutes that staffing has consistently been presented with problems with the ADDITIONALLY CREATED WORKLOAD caused by MSN? Isn’t AB1634 the cure-all feel-good bill of the future?] The California Healthy Pets website says communities will be SAFER. They drool on by informing that “Mandatory spaying and neutering will reduce the dangers caused by roaming stray animals, the transmission of rabies, and injuries from dog bites. Unaltered dogs are three times more likely to attack humans and other pets.” Since Santa Cruz field authorities state that there is a noticeable increase in field activities such as animal biting incidents WITH mandatory spay/neuter, it would appear that “mandatory” spaying and neutering is DETRIMENTAL to communities and NOT SAFER! OOPS! Must be an oversight on the California Healthy Pets website. I do hope their new blogger is reading this! Here is a link to the recent Santa Cruz Sentinel article “Animal Shelter Workers Protest Leader’s Departure” (12 Dec 2007) <http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/story.php?storySection =Local&sid=51502> It appears the first paragraph explains things quite nicely. Workers suspected that Katherine Vos resigned Monday “under pressure.” The article also states that “workers declined to comment to the press on Tuesday in fear of losing their positions.” Some shelter workers called in sick on Tuesday to protest a decision they said was “forced on them.” Vos, the second general manager to oversee shelters in Scotts Valley and Watsonville since the county agency was formed in 2002, stated “I know there’s been a lot of dissension about me leaving and this is not what I wanted.” (The shelters house a combined 6,500 animals.) The county took over animal-control services and the bulk of sheltering in 2002, amid a FINANCIAL SCANDAL at the local SPCA. The SPCA now serves as an advocacy and education group but does not handle shelters. The Animal Services Authority is governed by a board of city and county administrators and law enforcement heads. Only one elected official, Sheriff Steve Robbins, serves on the board. Vos has worked in animal sheltering and enforcement for more than 25 years, and is vice president of the state Animal Control Directors Association. Before coming to Santa Cruz she worked as chief animal control officer for El Dorado County and chief animal care officer for Sacramento Animal Care Services. [Wouldn’t you think Santa Cruz would want to keep the VP of the Animal Control Directors Association on their payroll?] Continuing on setting the record straight, here is a link to an article about “Taiwanese” dogs in the State of California. <http://www.cooldoghalloffame.com/rescue-dog-hall-of-fame/prison-program-turns-problem-dogs-into-pets/1377> From the San Francisco Chronicle (14 Dec). “Taiwan? There are dogs in shelters here from Taiwan? Yes, there are. In some parts of the United States there is a shortage of adoptable dogs, not an overpopulation. Dogs are being imported to the U.S. from Puerto Rico to as far away as Taiwan to fill shelters here so people can adopt them. It’s currently easy to import dogs into the U.S. though, as diseases like the canine version of rabies are eliminated here, more people are worrying about the diseases that such dogs may bring with them into this country.” [Thanks to Cool Dog Hall of Fame!] “PRISON PROGRAM TURNS PROBLEM DOGS INTO PETS” Last year, Melody was just another typical mongrel from Taiwan: sharp features, pointy ears, curly tail. [please click on above link for full text of article] In closing, Santa Cruz MSN is a miserable failure. No “ifs”, “ands” or “buts” about it. It failed. Plain and simple. However, Lloyd Levine and Judie Mancuso are going to continue beating a dead horse. By the way, when I asked Ms. Mancuso in October 2007 the following question, “Judie, whose bill is this? Yours? Or Lloyd’s?” Her reply was swift. “Why it is MY BILL, of course! Lloyd is busy with his Senate campaign.” I had no idea that Ms. Mancuso was now an elected official. I must have missed that part. My bad. The Santa Cruz shelter statistics that are being utilized by the coalition are unverifiable. Please note that when mandatory spay/neuter was first implemented in Santa Cruz (1995-1997), sky rockets were going off. Impounds and euthanasia went through the roof. There is NOTHING “healthy” about AB1634. This unfunded bill will cost the State of California MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. The California Healthy Pets Act will NOT save the state ANY money. It will NOT save lives. Thousands more dogs and cats will lose their lives in shelter “death camps” needlessly throughout the state! Let’s kick this bill to the curb and get back to what we all love … our companion animals. Make 2008 the year that this legislation goes to that great big doghouse in the sky. NOW the record has been set straight! Happy Holidays,Brat Zinsmaster P.S. Please feel free to share this “record” with your Assembly Members and Senators, with your local news media (print and radio), with your local shelters, the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker. Permission to cross post is encouraged!
October 17, 2007
Legislative Report 10-17-07
Authored by: Ken Sondej & Linda D. Witouski
Ken Sondej – email@example.com
American Kennel Club Legislative Liaison – Silver State Kennel Club
Legislative Liaison – National Pet Press
Legislative Liaison – Nevada Dog Fanciers Assc.
Director Government Affairs and Legislative Advisor – Adopt A Rescue Pet
Advisor – Indiana Aiimal Owners Alliance
Advisor to Clubs and groups in Southern Nevada, Arizona, California
RDOWS Nevada Director
Linda Witouski – firstname.lastname@example.org
American Kennel Club Judge
American Kennel Club Delegate – Myrtle Beach Kennel Club – SC
American Kennel Club Legislative Liaison – South Carolina & Pennsylvania
Legislative Liaison/Staff Writer – National Pet Press/TDP
Legislative Chair/BOD – Myrtle Beach Kennel Club
Legislative Chair – Yankee Miniature Pinscher Club
Member: NAIA, MOF, ERPT, DSJA, DJAA, MBKC, YMPC, MPCA
STATES – in alphabetical order
Anniston – City Council is looking at revisions (to their current animal control law) .after two high-profile pit bull attacks on Anniston residents over the summer…is considering several possible revisions. City Attorney Polly Russell has made several recommendations, including: Giving Anniston police officers more power to seize vicious dogs, Setting up a court review process to evaluate whether dogs are vicious. Establishing new rules on how to deal with vicious dogs. No mention was made regarding any ban of any breed.
Geneva – City Council may consider a Pit Bull Ordinance and will look at placing a tight leash on the owners of dangerous dogs. Council is looking for input from the public.
Anchorage – City leaders are considering a stinky issue: whether to ban dogs, and the surprises they can leave behind, from fenced ball fields. Two different proposals one that would keep dogs out of all city ball fields, and a more narrow measure that would apply only to fenced fields. The narrower proposal would allow groups to conduct events such as dog shows on the baseball diamonds as long as they receive permission from the city.
Little Rock – HB1489 – new state law provides for the filing of criminal charges, under certain circumstances, against the owner of a dog. The law creates the crime of “unlawful dog attack” and allows the charge to be filed against the owner if he or she “knows or has reason to know” that the dog has a “propensity to attack, cause injury or endanger the safety of others without provocation” and when the owner “negligently” allows the dog to attack another person and the attack causes death or serious injury. Conviction of a Class A misdemeanor is punishable by up to a year in jail, a fine of up to $1,000, or both. The law bill also permits a judge or jury in the case to award restitution to the victim for any medical costs incurred. Passed 09/20/07 text available upon request.
Arkadelphia – Board of Directors will hear from Sheriff David Turner, Arkadelphia Police Chief Al Harris and Patrolman Jody Evans regarding pit bull dog attacks in the county as they consider on second reading an ordinance to place restrictions on owners of the dogs in the city. The proposed ordinance lists things pit bull owners must do to keep their dogs. That includes paying $125 to register the dog, having an I.D. chip inserted, having the dog spayed or neutered. The owner must also buy public liability insurance in the amount of at least $100,000.
Huntington Beach � CORRECTION: The ordinance was not passed, an approval to draft an ordinance did pass.
West Hollywood – West Hollywood’s Groundbreaking Ban on the Declawing of Animals Upheld: News Conference to be Held on Monday, October 15, 2007. California Supreme Court announced that it is refusing to review a decision by the California Court of Appeal upholding West Hollywood’s ban on non-therapeutic declawing of animals. The City of West Hollywood will hold a news conference to address this issue and to announce its enforcement of the ban on the declawing of animals at 10 a.m.on Monday, October 15, 2007 at West Hollywood City Hall, 8300 Santa Monica Boulevard. The lower appellate court decision had concluded that the City’s ground-breaking ordinance is a proper exercise of the City’s police power and not in conflict with State law. West Hollywood’s declawing ordinance is the first of its kind in California and sets a precedent for local government across the state. “We are elated by the California Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the appeal filed by the California Veterinary Medical Association (CWMA),” said West Hollywood Mayor John Duran. “From the time I introduced this ordinance,I was confident that protecting animals from mutilation was the right thing to do no matter who opposed it. Declawing amounts to amputation and we should call it what it is. Animals deserve the right to exist the same way they were born and not be “adapted” to meet people’s needs,” he continued. News conference participants will include Orly Degani, the lawyer who assisted West Hollywood in defending the ordinance in court; West Hollywood Mayor John Duran, who sponsored the declawing ordinance; and Dr. Jennifer
Conrad, DVM of The Paw Project, who provided medical input regarding animal declawing to support the ordinance. The California Veterinary Medical Association, a veterinarian trade group, challenged the West Hollywood declawing ordinance in court, claiming the ordinance was preempted by State law, and that West Hollywood has no authority to regulate the medical practices of veterinarians. West Hollywood disagreed with that position and defended the ordinance. A Los Angeles judge overturned the ordinance in 2003, ruling that cities lack power to limit the practice of state-licensed professionals. The court of appeal reversed the lower court decision, allowing West Hollywood’s ban on animal declawing within its City limits to be enforced. The California Supreme Court has now denied CVMA’s petition for review of the decision by the appellate court.
For more information, regarding the City of West Hollywood’s Declawing
Ordinance, please contact Hernan Molina, Deputy to West Hollywood Mayor John
Duran, at 323-848-6460 or Tamara White, Public Information Officer, at
Fairfield – A law giving more power to local animal control officers and strengthening penalties against dog owners whose animals attack other animals went into effect on Monday. Under the new law animal control can order any restraining or disposal on the second instance a dog owner would get a summons to appear in court to defend a misdemeanor nuisance charge. Effective 10/01/07
Tallahassee – HB101 (2008) – An ACT relating to dangerous dogs; amending 767.14, F.S.; eliminating the prohibition of breed-specific local government regulation of dangerous dogs, providing an effective date. text available upon request.
Alachua County – Commission unanimously voted to ban the chaining or tethering of dogs for more than three hours in a 24-hour period. Dogs on a running or trolley-system of being chained are still allowed because the dogs can move more freely. The ordinance requires that the length of the chain be at least three times the length of the animal, from head to back, excluding the tail. The Commission recommended that the county staff work to educate the public about the new law concerning the chaining of dogs and why it is important. Also, the chain must weigh less than one-eighth the weight of the dog. Passed 09/18/07 (Note: Adam Goldfarb, issues specialist for the Humane Society of the United States is touting this as a HBSUS victory.)
City of Hollywood – soliciting to amend prohibition of BSL state-wide
City of Pembroke Pines – soliciting to amend prohibition of BSL state-wide
Miami-Dade – Thanks to the hard work of fanciers in Miami-Dade, the Chapter 5 Re-write of the Animal Control Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance concerning dog limits was DEFERRED for further work.
Athens – anti-tethering ordinance will be presented for discussion at the Oct 18 agenda-setting meeting of the Athens-Clarke county Commissioners. Public comment will be allowed. If accepted for the agenda, it will be voted on November 6. ACC Animal Control is in favor of the ordinance. The ;proposed ordinance contains the following: It shall be unlawful for any owner of a domesticated animal to chain, tie, fasten or otherwise tether the animal to dog houses, trees, fences, vehicles or other stationary objects as a means of confinement except that the animal may be temporarily confined by a tether while attended by its owner. Any tether used to temporarily confine an animal while attended by its owner must be attached to a collar or harness and shall not be wrapped directly around the animal’s neck. Such tethers shall not be excessively heavy or weighted so as to inhibit the animal’s movement. All domestic animals shall be provided with a safe and sanitary confinement area constructed to protect the animal from injury and of a size to allow the animal sufficient space to allow each animal to stand, turn around, and lay down and make all other normal body movements in a normal and comfortable position appropriate to the age, size and health of the animal. The area shall have a means to rapidly eliminate excess water and minimize mud.
Forsyth – County Commission may revamp its animal control ordinance to outlaw the chaining of dogs. A draft change in the law, presented to commissioners at a work session Tuesday afternoon, also would dictate that each dog have a minimum of 150 feet of enclosed space for exercising. Commissioners, who have been pressured by animal rights activists to outlaw chaining or tethering, expressed reservations about details of the proposed changes. The community should be given a minimum of 90 days to prepare for a ban on tethering, and a first violation should carry a warning, not fines. Proposed changes would prevent owners from keeping their dogs on chains, ropes or leashes just as a means to restrain the dogs’ movement outdoors.
Springfield – SB1279 – Amends the Illinois Insurance Code. Provides that an insurer issuing a policy or contract insuring against liability for injury to any person or against liability for injury to or destruction of property, arising out of ownership or lease of residential one, 2, 3, or 4 dwelling real property, may cancel, charge, or impose an increased premium or rate for or refuse to issue or renew that kind of policy or contract based in whole or in part upon the harboring of a dog found to be vicious under the Animal Control Act upon the insured property. text available upon request.
Johnston City – vicious dog ordinance, which was passed at the Johnston City Council will ban the introduction of new pit bulls and other dogs defined as “vicious” into the city with existing dogs being registered. The State of Illinois has laws on the state books stating it is illegal to pass breed selective legislation.
Knoxville – In August and September, the Knoxville City Council discussed whether to reform an ordinance that specifically bans pit bulls to include all vicious dogs. The ban, which had not been enforced since it was passed in 1990. City Council discussed whether to amend its ordinance to include all dangerous dogs and after some research and discovered that an Illinois law passed several years ago specifically prohibits local governments from banning dogs by breed. City Council using outdated information from The Centers for Disease Control study regarding fatal dog attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998. Of the more than 300 fatal attacks, breed information was available for 238. About 66 could be traced to pit bulls and 39 to rottweilers, the top two breeds by far. Despite these findings, the CDC has urged the statistics not be used to make policy.
McClure – Mayor Cheryle Dillon wrote the animal control ordinance that will be introduced at the village board’s meeting Tuesday night (10/09/07). As director of the Humane Society of Southeast Missouri, she had some background on the issues. The proposed ordinance would enable the village to pick up dogs and cats allowed to run loose. A microchip identification would be injected into the animal, and the owner would be required to pay a $25 return fee and $10 a day in boarding costs. The second time the animal is picked up it would be altered if it was not already spayed or neutered. The owner would be billed for the procedure in addition to paying the other fees. All the procedures would be conducted at the Humane Society of Southeast Missouri in Cape Girardeau. The board is investigating whether it can require owners of pit bulls, Doberman pinschers, Rottweilers and German shepherds to maintain extra liability insurance. The ordinance being used as a basis is from a city in Missouri � not Illinois. Illinois state llaw prohibits breed specific legislation.
Oswego – proposal of a limit of four canines or felines by enacting a pet limit. Currently the limit is eight. There is no “grandfather clause”.
Ft Wayne – Certain dog breeds (pitbulls) could be banned in Fort Wayne as a City Council-led group examines whether the city’s dog-bite laws need to be strengthened. Two main focuses. The first is whether any types of breed-specific laws are needed in the city. Indianapolis Mayor Bart Peterson called for a ban on pit bulls earlier this year, which Lewis said made it all the more appropriate to discuss it locally. The second focus is whether the city needs a way to classify dogs as potentially dangerous if they have escaped and bitten a human or other dog. The city can fine owners of dogs, but can only label a dog as dangerous, which requires it to be killed.
Terre Haute – Terre Haute City Council members approved a law change outlining the ways an animal can be tethered. Under the new proposal, people could tether, or restrain, an animal by a leash or similar device only for a reasonable period of time to perform a task; collars must be made of “non-abrasive material;” and the leash or tether must be at least five times the length of the animal. The animals must have access to food, water and shelter at all times, and they “shall be monitored periodically. Passed 10/12/07
MARSHALLTOWN – Two controversial topics are being resurrected by the Marshalltown City Council at its discussion meeting Monday: pit bulls and North Third Avenue.Plans for the city council to talk about restricting pit bulls within Marshalltown have been weeks in the making, but the actual discussion will arrive Monday, days after a pit bull attack downtown. The council in February discussed and passed an ordinance lifting a previous law that automatically declared some breeds, including pit bulls, as vicious.
Current policy requires any dog to first bite or show aggressive behavior before being declared vicious. A second bite or show of aggression would then lead to euthanization.
Baldwin – Council Member Tony Brown, who chairs the safety committee, also told the council that they are looking into ordinances regarding pit bulls and vicious dogs. Looking at two ordinances. One is pit bull banning and the other is vicious dog. text available upon request
McFarland – Proposing an ordinance pertaining to the keeping of dangerous dogs within the Corporate Limits of the City of McFarland. A dangerous dog is defined to mean:
The Staffordshire bull terrier breed of dog, The American pit bull terrier breed of dog, The American Staffordshire terrier breed of dog, Argentine Dogo, Bull Terrier, Cane Corso, Dogue de Bordeaux, Dogo Cubano, Godo Sardesco, Fila Brasileiro, Perro de Presa Canario, Wolf hyprids, Rottweilers OR Any dog which has the apperance and characteristics of being predominantly of the above breeds or a combination of any of these breeds.
Wichita City – Council chose not to single out pit bulls in an amended ordinance targeting aggressive dogs. In the end, the council made one significant change to city laws. To be considered dangerous, a dog no longer has to bite someone – it can be considered dangerous by aggressive behavior. The city can force all dogs labeled “dangerous” to be sterilized and microchipped. Any dog that is caught running loose can be labeled dangerous.
Falmouth – passed breed selective legislation with no “grandfather clause”. All “pit bulls” must be out of the city be December 31, 2007 Passed 09/20/07
Abbeville – City leaders are looking to tighten up their laws outlining what is and what isn’t a dangerous dog. Currently, a dog is considered dangerous after two unprovoked attacks in 36 months. The council will consider changing that to just one un-provoked attack. They also want to require owners of dogs that are deemed dangerous to have $100,000 in insurance to cover the dog should they attack again. The council will also consider adding a $500 fine to anyone who doesn’t comply with these laws. When a dog is deemed dangerous the current ordinance requires the dog to be brought to an enclosed structure with a concrete base that’s four by ten feet. The council is considering adding a height requirement to those cages to make them six feet tall.
New Llano – Council officials are discussing an ordinance that would allow the town of New Llano to regulate and control the keeping of animals of vicious breeds within the corporate limits of New Llano, requirements for keeping animals of vicious breeds and penalties for violation of the proposed ordinance. The town defines breeds of dogs as vicious: “Pit Bulls”, any form of “pit Bull” mix, Doberman Pinscher of Doberman mix and Chow or Chow mix. If the ordinance passes, residents owning any of these dogs will have until Jan. 1, 2008 to comply with the new regulations. Any dog deemed a Vicious dog by New Llano must be in a fenced yard at least six feet in height at all times, to prevent a nuisance of danger to the public.
Livermore – proposed law that looks to protect residents from dangerous dogs.Proposed ordinance defines a dangerous dog and outlines prohibited transfers, special restraint, the insurance provision, and enforcement and penalties. If adopted, it would be more stringent than the state’s by requiring: � $300,000 insurance liability to have a courtt-declared dangerous dog, � secure enclosures and stipulated locations, � and prohibits transfers of the dog.
Baltimore County – considering a proposal to impose significant restrictions on pit bull owners under a proposal that requires the dogs to be kept in a locked cage or muzzled. The proposal includes any animal deemed menacing by the county’s animal control office and requires pit bull owners to post warning signs. The Baltimore County Department of Health is not in favor of breed-specific legislation as it may only serve to unfairly label certain breeds as ‘dangerous’.
UPDATE: Pit bull owners packed council chambers Tuesday to condemn the proposal, which also requires owners to purchase insurance and post warning signs. More than 30 people testified against the bill, which applies not only to pit bulls but any animal deemed “menacing” by the county’s animal control bureau. Councilman Vince Gardina, the Perry Hall Democrat who introduced the proposal, said he is willing to amend the bill to eliminate insurance and muzzling mandates. He said he still plans to push for required kennels.”The purpose of this bill is not to prevent ownership of any particular breed,” Gardina said. Four council members – Pikesville’s Kevin Kamenetz, Catonsville’s Sam Moxley, Dundalk’s John Olszewski Sr. and north county’s Bryan McIntire -expressed concern with the bill. Several said the county’s animal control bureau is already underfunded and lacks resources to enforce the measure. Kamenetz suggested Gardina withdraw the proposal. “Most of the correspondence we received said punish the owner and not the breed,” Kamenetz said. “I can’t help coming back to that.”
Takoma – City Council member, Colleen Clay, has asked the city attorney to research the legality of a town-wide ban and notified her colleagues to expect the issue on the fall agenda.
Boston – legislation under consideration – Massachusetts drivers will have to put a harness on Fido or secure Fluffy in a pet carrier every time they take their pet for a spin or face a fine of up to $50
Lansing � citizens of New Boston trying to get legislation passed that would, among other things, require mandatory spaying and neutering of dogs unless the owner is a licensed breeder; limit three dogs at a location and only one of a “high-risk breed;” and create felony charges and mandatory prison time for any owner of a dog that maims or kills a person. Note: “No other information available at this time”
Farmington Hills – City Council is to continue debating whether to enact a vicious dog ordinance. The debate centered on whether to strengthen the city’s leash law to mandate all dogs must be on a leash or to pass an ordinance regulating vicious dogs in the city. Now, dog owners in the city must walk their pooches on a leash or have their pet under the owner’s voice control.
North Muskegon – City Council wants to sink some teeth into the city’s animal ordinance. Council members could not agree on banning certain breeds such as pit bulls, and whether owners walking their pets should have a specific length of leash. Council trying to decide how to define what a vicious animal is. Proposals and options will be discussed at the next meeting October 15th.
Apple Valley – Police Chief Scott Johnson is helping draft a ordinance that will prevent dog attacks by banning dangerous dogs from the municipal boundaries. Currently the law reads: potentially dangerous dogs must have a microchip implanted in them for identification and be registered with police, must meet those requirements – and more. The dogs must be fenced when outside in a locked kennel with a roof and floor, be attended and muzzled while leashed, wear a “dangerous dog” collar tag and be covered by insurance of at least $50,000. The owner of a dangerous dog must post warning signs on the building or enclosure where it lives and must notify police if the dog moves or dies. Minnesota law currently forbids regulating dangerous or potentially dangerous dogs based solely on certain breeds. Note: HSUS driven
Cottage Grove – wants to draft a ordinance that will prevent dog attacks by banning dangerous dogs from the municipal boundaries. Potentially dangerous dogs must have a microchip implanted in them for identification and be registered with police, must meet those requirements – and more. The dogs must be fenced when outside in a locked kennel with a roof and floor, be attended and muzzled while leashed, wear a “dangerous dog” collar tag and be covered by insurance of at least $50,000. The owner of a dangerous dog must post warning signs on the building or enclosure where it lives and must notify police if the dog moves or dies. Minnesota law currently forbids regulating dangerous or potentially dangerous dogs based solely on certain breeds
Jackson County – under the new ordinances: . Once a dog is deemed vicious, his owners will have 30 days to build a pen for the animal, post signs and secure $100,000 in liability insurance. . At least one of the animal control officers will be deputized in order to carry out functions. No specific breed of dog is banned or singled out, all are considered equally. There is an emphasis on prevention. Once a dog is declared vicious or a danger to people or other animals, the designation can be appealed to the Board of Supervisors. A level of stiffer fines for judges to consider when animal laws are broken will be offered. Passed 09/19/07
Pascagoula – new ordinance designed to control vicious animals goes into effect 10/30/07. According to the ordinance passed by the Jackson County Board of Supervisors, a vicious animal is one that constitutes a threat to human beings or other animals and also defines a vicious dog as one that attacks a human without provocation, or kills or injures a domestic animal or livestock, when not on the dog owner’s property. The law would also target a dog that is raised for dog fighting, or a dog that shows a tendency or disposition to attack a human being.
Lee’s Summit – Council passed an ordinance that would amend Chapter 5 of the city’s code of ordinances regarding animals, specifically regarding dangerous dogs. The amended animal ordinance requires dogs to be spayed or neutered at six months of age unless the owner has an unaltered dog license. For owners to qualify for an unaltered dog license, a dog must either be a competition dog, a dog used for law enforcement purposes, an assistance dog or a dog used specifically for breeding purposes. An unaltered dog owner must apply for an unaltered dog license annually.Passed 09/20/07
Rockview – Rockview City officials are discussing APBT restrictions and/or bans. No details as of yet.
Scott City – Council will review the city’s restrictions against vicious dogs following an incident last week in which a pit bull in the Cloverdale subdivision attacked and killed another animal. City has no law defining certain breeds as “vicious,” but city code allows animals that pose a threat to humans or animals to be deemed “vicious” by a “licensing authority” — the city. However the code doesn’t specify where that authority lies. Vicious dogs are required to be secured in an enclosure they can’t escape from, inside a home or tied up to a leash no longer than 6 feet under the current code.
Lincoln – Legislature’s Judiciary Committee is studying whether tougher laws aimed at dangerous dogs and their owners are needed. Sen. Vickie McDonald of St. Paul believes that something more needs to be done is based on anecdotal evidence and her assertion that the state law, on it’s face, is too weak. She wants to make it easier to label dogs as dangerous, which can force them to be confined and even euthanized if they continue to attack.
South Sioux City – City leaders want to tighten up their pet ordinance, researching city and state laws regarding viscous animals including a proposal to ban all pit bulls from the city
Concord – working on ‘unchain the dog’ type legislation. No details available yet.
-Albuquerque – IN THE NEWS !
Tue Oct 9, 2007
Today Mayor Chavez announced his run for the US Senate seat that will be vacated by Senator Domenici. Mayor Chavez’s support of the Animal Rights agenda needs to be made an issue during his Senate run. Chavez supported HEART and acts in concert with Animal Rights groups – his position has consistently been harmful to animal welfare and adversely affects our property rights. Unfortunately, Senator Bingaman also votes in favor of extreme Animal Rights issues, whereas Senator Domenici has opposed those measures. Good luck folks in Abq with voting for congress. Darren White has thrown his hat in for the House seat. He’s a SOLID AR candidate, was honored by animal protection voters this year…..claims to be “independent.” ! And we have Mayor Marty, and didn’t Heinrich vote for HEART? What a field of candidates so far !!!
Bernalillo County – proposed changes in animal ordnance. Changes cover permits for unsterilized animals, hobby breeder permit, cropping, docking and declawing by certified Veterinarian. Definition guidelines for seizing an animal, animal cruelty, dog fighting, etc. Animal Control Ordinance. text available upon request.
Haverstraw – passed ordinace making it illegal to have more than four dogs in your house if you live in the town of Haverstraw. The town board has not decided on how much time they will give pet owners to comply with the law – before getting tickets. Passed 09/24/07
Buncombe County – County commissioners will consider new animal control rules that include mandatory microchipping, tightening noise rules on barking dogs and increasing the frequency during which owners must give pets or other animals clean water.
Duplin County – plans to revise their animal control ordinance. Dog/cat registration and Hunting Kennel License to be established. License and registration fees will be collected by veterinarians at the same time rabies vaccinations are administered. Revision will define he definition for abandonment which states dogs left on any currently unoccupied property are considered to be abandoned. This poorly written definition could include property leased for kenneling hunting dogs, or even dogs being attended by someone else while the owner is away. The ordinance also contains a ban on exotic animals; makes it illegal for a dog to bark longer than 10 minutes; leashes longer than 10-feet would be illegal.
Duplin County – a animal control ordinance has turned into a war of words with Duplin County hunters. The County Commissioners want to hold more meeting but county manager Mike Aldridge disagrees. Aldridge says enough with the meetings. Duplin County Humane Society game plan, generally benign at the beginning – they come in to help puppies and kittens, but what they want is to establish an income stream and to establish more animal control – their end goal. Ken Rau, president of the Duplin County Humane Society, drafted the proposal, is on the animal advisory board. Note: The ordinance is promoted by the HSUS.
Fuquay-Varina – proposing pretty severe “kennel” legislation – Four or more dogs (or cats) will constitute a “kennel” under the ordinance. And operating a kennel – even for a hobby breeder – will be very expensive indeed. The purpose of the legislation appears to be to stop almost all dog and cat breeding in the town. text available upon request
Henderson County – regarding proposed ordinance: *The nonsense about registering ALL cats and dogs has been dumped, *All animals adopted from rescue, shelters, etc. must be sterilized, *No parking lot, roadside, or flea market sales / giveaway of animals. If an intact dog gets picked up by AC, it’s going to cost you more to get it back. (It’s already in the ordinance that no bitch in estrus shall be allowed to roam free.) The first time your dog gets picked up, you have the option of chipping with fees waived, for example. The Interim Director of Animal Services kept emphasizing the leash law. Another draft will be submitted after the weekend. Next step is to make sure the word “mandatory” isn’t included. Thank heaven County staff seems to have some sense!
Jackson County – County has drafted an animal control ordinance to control dangerous or potentially dangerous dogs and potentially dangerous breeds with include but not limited to; Rottweilers and Pit Bulls. Any potentially dangerous dog within the county unless it is confined within a fully enclosed pen (wireless fencing is not considered acceptable for a fully enclosed pen), or is securely under restraint by means of a leash or chain and firmly under control at all times. The premises on which any animal under this section is confine shall be clearly marked with a warning sign. County will hold a workshop for discussion on a revision to the ordinance naming Rottweilers and Pit Bulls as potentially dangerous – cruelty is failure to provide proper food and water daily, shelter from the weather, and adequate inoculation against disease; however what *proper* and *adequate* are is never defined – the local Humane Society has *requested* the inclusion of mandatory spay/neuter for all pets in the county; this is a request and not currently part of the draft ordinance. text available upon request
Kinston – animal control has put a three or two dog limit ordinance forward to the commissioners. Under the proposed ordinance all households with more than the limit will be subjected to paid licensure- approval by commissioners and an inspection. Council and that they sent it back to public safety for work – etc. There is no limit law now.
Columbus – HB223 still under consideration. Establishing licensing requirement and standards of care for certain dog breeding kennels and dog intermediaries, establishing definitions of a dog kennel (8 or less) and regulated dog breeding kennel, (8 & above), animal shelter, animal rescue
Columbus – bill is on its way to the State Senate that could impact animal shelters across the state when it comes to housing pit bulls during dog fighting investigations. Proposed bill passes, it will put a timeline on just how long the dogs can stay at the shelter. Bill that would turn animals back over to the owners if there is not sufficient evidence or make dependants pay for the animal stays.
Canton – City ordinance on pets heading back to council to possible change the pet limit laws. The number of pets residents may own would not be limited, but a multiple-pet license would be required to own four or more adult pets per household. Other proposed amendments to the existing ordinance involve definitions of what constitutes a nuisance regarding pets. Multiple-pet licenses would be required to harbor four or more animals over the age of six months, except for persons active in the business of dog training. For others, a license must be obtained within 30 days of obtaining ownership of a fourth pet (dog, cat or rabbit). The initial fee would be $25, followed by annual renewal fees of $10. An animal would be considered a nuisance when it causes inconvenience or disturbance to other persons due to noise, odor or when the animal: damages real or personal property other than the owner’s; causes unsanitary, dangerous or unreasonably offensive conditions; chases, molests, attacks, bites, interferes with or physically intimidates anyone while on or off the premises of the owner; chases, molests, attacks, bites or interferes with other animals while off the owner’s premises; chases vehicles; or causes a disturbance by excessive barking, caterwauling or other noisemaking.
Garfield Heights – new ordinance bans Pitbulls. The ban applies to any dogs whose blood line is that of a Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, American Pit Bull or any dog “whose appearance or characteristics render it identifiable as partially of one or more such breeds. Effective 10/24/07
Greenhills – city council passed the ordinance banning pit bulls. A “pit bull” as used in the ordinance shall mean any breed commonly associated with the term, including American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier OR any dog with the appearance or characteristics or PARTIAL characteristics of said breeds. There is NO grandfather clause. Passed 10/02/07.. Effective in 30 days
Hocking County – Logan – New pit bull policy. Pit bulls must be confined at home, muzzled on streets. Pit bulls must be confined in a fully enclosed pen (with padlock and roof) when on their owner’s property, and they must be muzzled when taken off their owner’s property. Franklin and Hocking counties are enforcing the policy on the following breeds “commonly known as pit bulls”: American Pit Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, American Bulldog and $100,000 of insurance coverage required of pit bull owners
Painesville – new ordinance now states that, if off the premises of the dog owner, any pit bull, pit bull mixed breed or other vicious dog, as defined by the Ohio Revised Code, must be kept on a leash and muzzled until the dog’s return to the premises of ownership.
Sandusky – City leaders and the police department are working to bring back an animal control officer and amend city ordinances to specifically target pit bulls.
Chickasha – a modification to the city’s animal ordinance is supposed to give officers the latitude they need to protect residents from dangerous animals. The new provisions provide for a definition of a “potentially dangerous” and “potentially vicious” animal. The provisions give animal control officers and police officers the ability to declare an animal potentially vicious if it displays aggressive behavior. The declaration can be appealed to municipal court, where a judge will make the final determination on whether the animal is potentially vicious. If marked as potentially vicious, the provisions include a new set of guidelines the pet owners must follow. Within 30 days of being declared potentially vicious or dangerous, the owner must provide a kennel for the animal with 150 square feet of space for each animal within the pen. The kennel must be located within a yard confined by a sight-proof fence, measuring at least six foot high. Any time the animal is removed from the confines, it must be on a leash and muzzled. Animal control must be provided with two color photos of the animal and the animal will be required to have an electronic identification tag and to register the animal with the city on an annual basis, at a cost of $100 per year. The owners will also have to provide the city notification if the animal dies or is moved out of city limits. As breeding of potentially dangerous animals is against city ordinance, the animal will have to be sterilized once it has been deemed potentially vicious. If the animal is already pregnant, the offspring must be removed from city limits once they are of weaning age. Owners will also be required to have insurance on their animal. The ordinance requires a minimum of $100,000 for bodily injury or death.
TULSA – Statewide: “Oklahoma Pet Quality Assurance and Protection Act.” Section 698.51 (This will impact those who travel into/out of the state and all breeders. This will affect everyone who travels to or through Oklahoma, as well as the breeder.) According to reports from the last meeting, the vet running this said they plan to sit at the Tulsa airport and catch people shipping puppies out as one method of enforcement. They have already been there watching the airport to get ideas of how to work the plan. The funds will be distributed to the AR’s as “royalties”
Harrisburg – HB1065 – voted out of the Judiciary Committee by an overwhelming majority, is among a growing number of anti-tethering bills approved or under consideration in 19 states. Bill would forbid chaining between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. Out of Committee 09/25/07 text available upon request
Harrisburg – Citing the concerns of hunters and dog hobbyists, the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture has altered an early draft of regulations for large-scale commercial dog breeders, a department spokeswoman said. The regulations are being revised at the behest of Gov. Ed Rendell to address concerns about dog breeding companies where hundreds of puppies are bred for sale. An early draft of the proposed revisions outraged kennel club members, dog show organizers and hunters who raise sporting dogs. They feared the new regulations would require them to spend tens of thousands of dollars on kennel upgrades, and subject them to licensing fees and steep fines for violations.
Harrisburg – SB1101 – Amending the act of December 7, 1982 (P.L.784, No.225), entitled, as amended, “An act relating to dogs, regulating the keeping of dogs; providing for the licensing of dogs and kennels; providing for the protection of dogs and the detention and destruction of dogs in certain cases; regulating the sale and transportation of dogs; declaring dogs to be personal property and the subject of theft; providing for the abandonment of animals; providing for the assessment of damages done to animals; providing for payment of damages by the Commonwealth in certain cases and the liability of the owner or keeper of dogs for such damages; imposing powers and duties on certain State and local officers and employees; providing penalties; and creating a Dog Law Restricted Account,” further providing for spaying or neutering as condition for release of certain animals; and repealing certain provisions relating to sterilization of dogs and cats text available upon request
Columbia – S833 – A bill to amend the code of laws of South Carolina, 1976, by adding Section 47-1-45 so as to prohibit the tethering, fastening, chaining, tying. or restraining a dog to a stationary object for more than three hours a day or for more than six hours a day on a trolley system, to provide Class 1 Misdemeanor criminal penalties, and to authorize local government by ordinance to vary these regulations. text available upon request
Beaufort – The Beaufort County Council board is reviewing a plan to make it illegal to tether dogs to stationary objects. Nonprofit Chain Free Beaufort collected more than 3,300 signatures against the practice and has 250 feet of chain-link fence available to help owners set up fences or dog runs as alternatives to tethering. County Sheriff P.J. Tanner, who is responsible for the county’s animal control officers, agreed with the information Bonturi (Chain Free Beaufort) presented. Tanner said tethering could mirror animal cruelty penalties, which can result in a fine of up to $200 or 30 days in prison under county ordinances. The committee will take up the issue at its next meeting Nov. 14, when committee chairman Bill McBride said input from animal control officers is expected. Meanwhile, Bonturi will begin selling the plan to the county’s municipal councils. This ordinance would be likely to mirror the state’s S833. text available upon request
Lee County – a proposal to have the Sheriff’s Department take over animal control was approved (09/21/07)
Sumter County – County Council approved the second reading for a proposed ordinance that would require people to register dangerous animals. What exactly categorizes an animal as dangerous? State law defines it as being a member of the dog or cat family that will attack another animal or human unprovoked. The dangerous animal proposal needs to pass one more reading to become law.
Nashville – State Senator Doug Jack is sponsoring a bill that would require the names of persons convicted of felony animal cruelty in Tennessee be put on an animal abuse registry. His plan would have the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, which maintains the sex offender registry, also maintain the animal abuse registry. The abuser’s name would remain on the registry for 10 years, after which, if there were no other related convictions, they could petition the court to have their name removed. The abuser would pay a fee which would offset the cost of maintaining the registry
Dyer – Dyer – Mayor and Board of Aldermen passed an ordinance in late September banning the ownership of pit bulls and other vicious dogs within the city’s limits. Those who already own such breeds can keep them but they must comply with certain requirements for possessing them in the ordinance and buy annual permits, according to a copy of the ordinance at the city’s Web site. Those who already own the dogs must buy an annual permit for $30 to continue to keep them in the city, owners must appear in person at the Dyer City Recorder’s office when making an application for a permit. 2nd Ordinance capping the number of dogs and cats residents can own.passed. The numbers of cats and dogs at a single-family residence to six over the age of 6 months old, the ordinance says. Those at multiple-family residences can’t have more than two dogs or cats over the age of 6 months. The ordinance does make exceptions such as for single-family residences located on lots which are five acres or larger. City officials have determined that “the keeping of large numbers of dogs and cats on residential property has an adverse impact on the value of neighboring properties. text available available upon request
Gallatin – city council is looking to establish a law targeting individuals who set up in parking lots of businesses to sell animals. The general discussion was to target breeders selling less than 25 animals annually. Breeders selling more than 25 animals are “highly regulated” by the state. Proposal regulates sales of pets in any location not covered by a business license…which would include most home/hobby breeders
Halls – Residents of Halls who own dogs that may be considered vicious will have a new set of rules to follow if members of the Board of Mayor and Aldermen complete the second reading of the town’s new vicious dog ordinance. The ordinance, which passed its first reading at last week’s regular board meeting, defines ‘vicious’ as any dog that attacks or bites without provocation, has the tendency to attack unprovoked or is capable of inflicting serious physical harm or death due to its size or physical nature. The ordinance also applies to any pit bull terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Doberman Pinscher or Rottweiler, or any mixed breed which contains these breeds in an identifying measure. The ordinance also names dogs owned, harbored or trained in any way for dog fighting. Upon the passing of the ordinance, Halls residents who already own dogs that fall into the ‘vicious dog’ category will have 30 days to obtain a permit from the City Recorder and must follow strict guidelines for confinement, transport and insurance for the animal. The ordinance also requires:
— Dogs to be confined in a securely enclosed and locked pen upon the owner’s premises that has a secured top, sides and bottom or sides embedded into the ground to at least a depth of one foot. The pen must be adequately lit and kept in clean and sanitary condition.
— Exceptions to confinement will be allowed by the ordinance only to transport the animal to or from a state-licensed veterinary office, a state-licensed kennel or to the location of a purchaser of the dog. During transport, the dog must be muzzled and restrained by a chain or leash and under the physical restraint of an adult person whose weight is equal to or greater than the dog. The dog will not be allowed on city-owned property, except for the roads when being transported to the three approved locations listed above.
— Owners to display signs on the premises in a prominent place indicating a vicious animal resides on the premises. A similar sign must be posted on the pen or kennel of the animal.
— When applying for the permit, the owner of the animal must show proof of public liability insurance in the minimum amount of $50,000 per person and $100,000 per occurrence for any personal injuries inflicted by the vicious dog.
At the meeting, aldermen debated the penalties in the current ordinance and amended them when alderman James Tyus announced that the existing penalty “did not have enough ‘bite’ to it.” The ordinance, which allowed a fine of not more than $50 and not less than $2 per day that the owner is in violation, was amended to read “not less than $50.” PASSED
Somerville – Board of Mayor and Aldermen has unanimously passed an ordinance on final reading that prohibits ownership of pit bull dogs within the city. Ordinance states that the breeds of dogs known as “pit bulls” include any American pit bull terrier, Staffordshire terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier or any dog that predominantly has the appearance and characteristics of one or more of those breeds. The new ordinance states that other cities consider pit bulls so dangerous to humans and other animals that special legislation restricting or prohibiting their ownership has been enacted. It notes that current methods of control by pit bull owners in Somerville have proved to be “insufficient in protecting the public.” Individuals owning pit bull dogs at the time the ordinance was adopted are allowed to keep them, if they comply with the following provisions within 30 days of the ordinance’s effective date:
(a) Register the dog with the city administrator.
(b) Do not allow the dog to go outside its kennel, pen or other proper enclosure unless secured with a leash no longer than 4 feet.
(c) A 2-inch leather collar must be used when the dog is on a leash and must buckle, not snap, onto the dog.
(d) Do not keep the dog on a chain, rope or other type of leash outside its kennel or pen, unless a person of suitable age and discretion is in physical control of the leash. The dog cannot be leashed to inanimate objects, such as trees, posts, buildings or structures.
(e) When it is necessary for the dog to receive veterinary care, it must wear a properly fitted muzzle sufficient to prevent it from biting humans or other animals. The muzzle cannot interfere with the dog’s breathing or vision. At the request of Fayette County Animal Control Officer Thomas Petrowski, the board added a requirement that, while transported to any facility with veterinarians, the dog be enclosed in a portable kennel with a lock. Noting that the dogs are frequently transported in pickup trucks, Petrowski said they are not “tied in” or in cages and can easily come out of the trucks.
(f) Except when leashed and muzzled, the dog must be securely confined indoors or in a locked pen, kennel or other secure enclosure suitable to prevent the entry of children and designed to prevent the dog from escaping. The kennel must have a concrete floor, with its post set in concrete, be locked with a key or combination lock when the dog is inside, comply with the city’s zoning and building ordinances and other regulations, include shelter and protection from the elements, adequate exercise room, lighting, ventilation and kept in a clean and sanitary condition.
(g) The dog cannot be kept on a porch, patio or in any part of a house or structure that would allow it to exit the building on its own volition, when the windows are open or when screen windows or doors are the only obstacles preventing it from exiting the structure.
(a) display on the kennel or pen and in a prominent place on their property a sign easily readable by the public containing the words, “Beware of Dog.”
(b) provide the city administrator proof of public liability insurance in a single-incident amount of $100,000 for bodily injury to or death of any person or for damage to property owned by any person that may result from owning the dog.
(c) provide the city administrator two color photographs of the dog that clearly show its color and approximate size.
(d) report to the city administrator within 10 days after the removal from the city or death of the dog, the birth of offspring or the new address of the owner within the city limits.No person can sell, barter or in any other way transfer possession of the dog to any person within the city who does not permanently reside in the same household and on the same premises. All offspring born of the dog within the city must be removed from the corporate limits within six weeks of the birth. Failure to comply with the provisions of the ordinance will result in immediate seizure and impoundment of the dog. Violators will be subject to a fine prescribed in the general penalty clause of the Somerville Municipal Code. Passed 10/01/07 Effective within 30 days text available upon request
Amarillo � city council found out they can not ban pit bulls. We looked into it and spoke to City Attorney Marcus Norris. He tells us that the city is not allowed. State law prohibits breed specific ordinances. What the city does do is mimic Lillian’s Law which would file felony criminal charges against a pet owner whose dog causes unprovoked bodily injury if the dog is not on their own property.
Austin – city leaders are looking at revising an existing dog ordinance. New regulations on how dogs are declared dangerous. Some members raised concerns about the new guidelines, saying it gives Animal Control too much authority. It’s a hard issue because people react differently to animals. Big dogs scare some people, and the last thing in the world we want is good dogs being subjected to a dangerous dog or vicious dog designation because that impacts families
Austin – City – Starting Oct. 1, chaining or tethering unattended dogs including the use of fixed-point and trolley or pulley restraints will be a Class C misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $500.
Harris County – commissioners passed new ordinance making sales of animals on the roadside illegal. Passed 09/25/07
Houston – BREEDER PERMITS: Anybody who sells in the city dogs or cats that have not been spayed or neutered. $100 annual fee. First-time offenders will get a warniing with 30 days to comply. Citation can carry a fine of $50 and $2,000. Effective 07/01/07
SAN ANTONIO – UPDATE – The San Antonio Chapter 5 Animal Ordinance is on the move. San Antonio’s Animal Rights Brigade will hold a rally at City Hall on October 16th supporting the animal ordinance which requires spay/neuter of all outdoor cats and ALL DOGS unless dog owners purchase an Intact Dog Permit and Litter/Breeder Permits. San Antonio City Council begins considering the ordinance at a B Session (work session) the next day. No date has been set for the official vote. This ordinance is an Animal Rights Manifesto and is California’s AB1634 & more.
Norfolk – September 25, 2007, Virginia Attorney General Bob McDonnell declared the following Norfolk ordinance regulating pet surgical procedures unlawful: Sec. 6.1-78.1. Cosmetic alterations to companion animals prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any person to cosmetically alter any companion animal. The only exception to this shall be for procedures performed under proper anesthesia, by a veterinarian licensed in the commonwealth. For purposes of this section, “tail docking”, “ear cropping”, “debarking” and “declawing” shall be considered cosmetic alterations. “Microchipping”, “tattooing”; and “ear tipping” shall not be considered cosmetic alterations. (Ord. No. 42,466, § 9, 11-21-06; Ord. No. 42,541, § 1, 1-30-07)
Enumclaw – City passed breed selective legislation against pitbulls, etc. text available upon request.
Olympia – Thurston County – city of Olympia maybe be considering breed selective legislation. Proposal was made by animal control representative on the Council.
Washington D.C. – City – B17-89 – consultation with the Department of Health, the Mayor may establish a list of potentially dangerous dogs breeds. Such list shall be revised periodically and shall be based upon information including breed characteristics and evidence of adverse incidents in the District. text available upon request
Madison – SB162 – An Act relating to extending domestic abuse restraining orders and injunctions to include abuse to animals and threats of abuse to animals. text available upon request
Madison – proposed bill that would cover large-scale dog breeders would need to get a state license, provide humane care and reimburse buyers for veterinary bills under a bipartisan bill state lawmakers. The measure marks another attempt by the Legislature to clamp down on inhumane treatment at puppy mills and give recourse to people who unknowingly buy sick dogs from them. Wisconsin has no regulations governing dog breeding. A bill introduced in 2003 that called for licenses was never scheduled for a vote on the Assembly floor. Under the latest version of the bill, DATCP (Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection) would set standards for humane care. Breeders who either sell 60 dogs annually or have at least eight breeding females would have to get a state license. Fees would range from $75 to $125, depending on how many dogs are sold.
Madison – LRB2829/3 – A act to amend 20.115 (2) and 93.20 (1) and to create 173.35 and 137.37 of the statues relating to: sale of dogs, regulation of certain dog breeders, grant rule — making authority, making an appropriation, and providing a penalty. text available upon request
October 13, 2007
1/20/2006 Letter, and info packet to Congress concerning NAIS
1/20/2006 Letter, and info packet to Fresno, CA City Council concerning proposed changes in their dog laws
1/23/2006 Letter, and info packet to Louisville, KY Metro Council concerning their proposed breed specific ordinance, cc’d to Courier-Journal
1/29/2006 Letter, and info packet to the Oklahoma Legislature Concerning Rep. Paul wesselhoft’s proposed state level BSL
1/29/2006 Letter to Daily Progress Newspaper concerning BSL
2/10/2006 Letter, and info packet to Federal Way, WA concerning proposed BSL
3/22/2006 Letter, and info packet to Lisbon Village, Ohio concerning proposed BSL
3/23/2006 Letter, and info packet to Leavenworth, Kansas concerning proposed BSL
3/23/2006 Letter, and info packet to Bedford County, TN. concerning proposed BSL
3/23/2006 Letter, and info packet to Elgin, IL. concerning proposed BSL
3/25/2006 Letter, and info packet to Trenton, NC concerning proposed BSL
3/28/2006 Letter and info packet to Benton, IL. concerning proposed BSL
3/28/2006 Letter and info packet to Trenton, MO concerning proposed BSL
5/1/2006 Letter and info packet to Anderson, IN. concerning proposed BSL
5/3/2006 Letter and info packet to Pine Bluff, AR concerning proposed BSL
5/4/2006 Letter to Pine Bluff Commercial newspaper concerning Pine Bluff’s proposed BSL
5/12/2006 Letter to Natchez Democrat Concerning Natchez, MS proposed BSL
5/16/2006 Letter, and info packet to Whiting, IN concerning proposed BSL
5/17/2006 Letter, and info packet to Richland, MS concerning proposed BSL
5/17/2006 Letter to Star-Herald concerning Natchez MS. proposed BSL
5/19/2006 Letter to News 36 WTVQ concerning Natchez, MS proposed BSL
5/19/2006 Letter and info packet to Spokane, WA City Council concerning proposed BSL
5/22/2006 Letter and info packet to Cox, Ohio
5/22/2006 Letter to John Gunn at Natchez Ms Democrat concerning Natchez proposed BSL
5/22/2006 Letter, and info packet to Jackson, MS City Council concerning proposed BSL
5/25/2006 Letter, and info packet with Pennsylvania law prohibiting BSL to Hazleton, PA concerning passage of BSL against the law of the State of Pennsylvania. Hazleton revoked their BSL and replaced it with a modified version of RDOWS Model Dog Owner Regulations.
5/26/2006 Letter to F. Spielman at The Sun-Times newspaper
5/26/2006 Letter to R. Agnew at the Clarion-Ledger
5/26/2006 Letter and info packet to Westfield, MA concerning proposed BSL
5/27/2006 Letter to N. Garcia at Visalia Gannett newspaper
5/28/2006 Letter, and info packet to the Mayor of Albuquerque concerning proposed mandatory spay/neuter law.
5/30/2006 Letter to L. Sweet at the Boston Herald concerning Boston’s proposed BSL
5/30/2006 Letter to Representative Ron Paul U.S. Congress concerning protecting the rights of dog owners
6/1/2006 Letter, and info packet to Mayor and City Council of Independence, MO concerning proposed BSL
6/1/2006 Letter, and more info to Louisville, KY Metro Council
6/1/2006 Letter, and info packet to Indianapolis/Marion County Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL
6/1/2006 Letter and info packet to Riverside County Board of Supervisors concerning proposed mandatory spay/neuter
6/2/2006 Letter and info packet to Brockton, MA concerning proposed BSL
6/2/2006 Letter and info packet to Waukegan Township, IL concerning proposed BSL (Illinois has a law prohibiting BSL)
6/2/2006 Letter and info packet to San Antonio, TX concerning proposed animal rights legislation
6/5/2006 Letter and info packet to West Bloomfield, MI concerning proposed BSL
6/13/2006 Letter and info packet to Chillicothe, MO concerning proposed BSL
6/14/2006 Letter, and info packet to Village of Lincolnwood, IL proposed BSL
6/15/2006 Letter and info packet to Lee’s Summit, MO concerning BSL/MS/N
6/19/2006 Letter, and info packet to Raytown, MO concerning proposed BSL
6/19/2006 Letter to C. Mason at the Press Democrat
6/22/2006 Letter to Mayor and Council of Gladstone, MO concerning proposed BSL
6/22/2006 Letter to Parker, Co City Councilman Jack Hilbert concerning Parkers proposed BSL
6/27/2006 Letter and info packet to Mayor and Council of Blue Springs, MO concerning proposed BSL
7/5/2006 Letter to Jenny Filmer at ay the Springfield News-Leader concerning Springfield MO proposed BSL
7/8/2006 Letter, and yet more info to Louisville, KY Metro Council
7/12/2006 Letter and info packet to Fall River, MA concerning proposed BSL
7/13/2006 Letter and info packet to Cleveland, Ohio Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL
7/13/2006 Letter and info packet to Evansville, IN concerning their overly convoluted proposed new animal regulations
7/13/2006 Letter to Mooresville, IN Mayor and council concerning proposed over convoluted animal regulations
7/13/2006 Letter and Sixth Appellate Court Decision finding BSL unconstitutional asking them to overturn their BSL
7/13/2006 Letter, and info packet to North Liberty, Iowa concerning proposed BSL
7/15/2006 Letter and info packet to Wichita, KS concerning proposed BSL
7/22/2006 Letter and packet to Mayor and Council Madison, WI concerning proposed BSL
7/31/2007 Letter and info packet to Montgomery, AL Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL
8/2/2006 Letter and info packet to Ocala, FL concerning proposed BSL (Florida pre-empts BSL at state level)
8/3/2006 Letter, and info packet to Gloucester, MA concerning proposed BSL
8/3/2006 Letter to L. Minor at Texarkana Gazette concerning a proposed BSL
8/7/2006 Letter and info packer to Warren County, KY concerning proposed BSL
8/8/2006 Letter and info packet to Gonzales, Louisiana Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL
8/8/2006 Letter to Oak Grove, MO Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL
8/13/2006 Letter, and info packet to Cullman, AL concerning proposed BSL
8/17/2006 Letter and info packet to Mayor and Council of Ripon, CA concerning proposed BSL
8/17/2006 Letter to City Attorney Montgomery, AL concerning proposed BSL
8/25/2006 Letter, and info packet to Mayor and Council of Vienna, VA concerning proposed BSL
8/27/2006 Letter, and info packet to Mayor and Council Eden, NC concerning proposed BSL
8/29/2006 Letter, and info packet to Rome, GA Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL
8/31/2006 Letter to Washington State Representative Bob Sump attempting to get legislation to protect dog ownership rights at state level
9/16/2006 RDOWS Colorado Director Nick Van Duren’s letter to the La Junta, CO Newspaper was published; http://www.lajuntatribunedemocrat.com/opinion/
9/20/2006 Letter and information packet to Erie, PA Mayor and Council concerning proposed legislation
9/21/2006 Letter and info packet to Tupelo, MS Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL
9/27/2006 TRUTHS FROM RDOWS BLOG created; https://rdows.wordpress.com
10/3/2006 Letter, and info packet to Durham, NC Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL
10/4/2006 Letter, and info packet to Decatur, GA Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL
10/5/2006 Letter, and info packet to Horicon, WI concerning proposed BSL
10/9/2006 Letter, and more info to Waukegan Village, IL concerning proposed BSL
10/10/2006 Letter and info packet to St. Joseph, IN Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL
10/10/2006 Letter and info packet to Olathe, KS concerning proposed BSL
10/10/2006 Letter and info packet to South Bend, IN Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL
10/12/2006 Letter and info packet to Wilkes Barre, PA Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL
10/12/2006 Letter, and info packet to Englewood, NJ Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL
10/12/2006 Letter and info packet to Representative Louis Kafka of MA concerning the protection of dog ownership rights
10/18/2006 Sent a copy of the Constitution of the State of Missouri to the Lee’s Summit Mayor and Council, as they have forgotten that their constituents have rights.
10/19/2006 More info sent to Olathe, KS
10/19/2006 Letter and info packet sent to League City, TX concerning proposed BSL (Texas prohibits BSL by state law)
10/24/2006 letter, and info packet to Waukesha, WI Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL
10/25/2006 Letter, and info packet sent to Oxford Township, Ohio concerning proposed BSL
11/18/2006 Letter and info packet sent to Shelbyville, TN Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL
11/22/2006 Letter, and info packet to Mayor and Council Richland, WA concerning proposed BSL
12/3/2006 Received positive response from Tacoma, WA Councilman Jake Fey
12/9/2006 Letter to B. Trout of PA Weekly requesting validation of his report on pure-bred dogs involved in bite incidents- No response
12/9/2006 Letter, and info packet to Nampa, ID Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL
12/11/2006 Response from Nampa, ID Mayor Tom Dale assuring RDOWS that there is no BSL in the agenda of the Napa Council.
12/13/2006 RDOWS makes the case proving that stupidity reigns in the Louky-Metro Council.
12/14/2006 Editorial sent to Idaho Statesman newspaper
12/27/2006 Letter, and info packet sent to Hilo Hawaii Council concerning proposed changes in their dog laws.
12/28/2006 Letter to Peter Vallone, Jr. Councilman NYC, NY concerning his proposed BSL.
4/12/2007 Letter and info packet to Coeur D’ Alene, ID Mayor concerning proposed BSL
4/14/2007 Letter and info packet and NY State law to Upper Brookville, NY concerning proposed BSL.
4/14/2007 Letter and info packet to Springfield, MO Mayor and Council concerning proposed revocation of BSL
4/15/2007 Letter and info packet to Lexington, NE Mayor and council concerning proposed BSL.
4/15/2007 Letter and info packet to Poulsbo, WA Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
4/16/2007 Letter, info packet and Texas State law prohibiting BSL to DeSoto, TX Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL
4/16/2007 Letter to Editor Daily Iberian newspaper concerning the ramifications of dangerous dog laws
4/16/2007 Response of thanks for letter and info packet from Councilwoman Sue Frank of Raytown, MO
4/16/2007 Letter and info packet to Wichita, KS Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL
4/17/2007 Response from Coeur D’Alene Mayor Sandi Bloem thanking RDOWS for letter, and info packet.
4/20/2007 Letter to Payette County, Idaho seeking confirmation of public notice of countywide BSL prior to its enactment
4/20/2007 Letter, and info packet to Payette County, ID County Commissioners concerning their enactment of BSL.
4/22/2007 Letter and info packet to Manhattan, KS Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
4/22/2007 Letter to Commissioner Larry Church, Payette County, ID demanding an apology for his statement on KTVB News. -No Response-
4/25/2007 Letter and info packet to St. Paul, MN Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
4/25/2007 Response from St. Paul thanking RDOWS for info packet and Model Dog Owner Regulations.
4/26/2007 Response from St. Paul, MN Mayor’s office thanking RDOWS for info packet and Model Dog Owner Regulations.
4/26/2007 Letter and info packet to Franklin County, Maine concerning proposed changes in their dog laws.
4/26/2007 Letter and info packet to Bluefield, WV Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
4/26/2007 Letter to Editor Town Crier Manila, AR concerning Manila’s proposed BSL
4/27/2007 Another letter to Manhattan, KS Mayor, and Council concerning proposed BSL
4/27/2007 Letter to Manila AR Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL
4/27/2007 Received letter of thanks from Councilman Bob Strawn of Manhattan, KS.
4/27/2007 Letter and info packet to Centerville, IA Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL
4/28/2007 Letter of opposition, and info packet to Dorchester County, SC concerning PeTA’s request to the County Government to pass BSL.
4/28/2007 Created and distributed a flier to oppose CA AB1634
4/30/2007 Received letter of thanks from Manhattan, KS Councilman Jim Sherow.
4/30/2007 Letter, and info packet to Canton, MA Town Clerk, and Council concerning proposed BSL.
5/2/2007 Letter and info packet to Somerville, MA Mayor and Board of Aldermen concerning proposed BSL.
5/2/2007 Received letter of thanks from Dorchester County, SC Councilman Richard H. Rosebrock.
5/2/2007 Letter and info packet to Massachusetts Legislature Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government concerning proposed BSL.
5/2/2007 Letter and info packet to Baltimore County, MD Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
5/2/2007 Letter, and info packet to Springdale, AR Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL
5/3/2007 Received letter of thanks from Marcie Goodman, Legislative Aide to Baltimore County Councilman T. Bryan McIntire.
5/3/2007 Letter and info packet to State of Massachusetts Legislature Committee concerning changes in the state’s dog laws.
5/3/2007 Letter, and info packet to Lonoke, AR Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
5/3/2007 Letter to Renee Lee at Houston Chronicle concerning Texas Senator Rodney Ellis proposed BSL for Houston.
5/4/2007 Letter and info packet to Tennessee Legislature concerning proposed changes in the state’s dog laws.
5/4/2007 Letter and info packet to Ashland City, TN Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
5/4/2007 Letter and info packet to Tuttle, OK Mayor, and Council concerning proposed BSL.
5/4/2007 Letter and info packet to Shelby, MS City attorney Jeffrey Livingston concerning proposed BSL.
5/4/2007 Letter and info packet to Bella Vista, AR concerning proposed changes in their dog laws.
5/5/2007 Letters and info packets to the entire Alabama Legislature concerning protecting dog ownership rights.
5/6/2007 Letters and info packets to the Leaders of the Massachusetts State Senate concerning proposed BSL.
5/6/2007 Letter to the editor Cleveland Plain Dealer concerning proposed BSL
5/7/2007 Created and distributed RDOWS Position Statement on CA AB1634
5/8/2007 Letter and info packet to Albert Lea, MN Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
5/9/2007 Letter and info packet to Jackson County MS Board of Supervisors concerning proposed changes in county dog laws.
5/9/2007 Letter and info packet to Batesville, AR Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
5/9/2007 Letter and info packet to Quitman County, GA Commissioners concerning proposed BSL.
5/10/2007 Letter and info packet to Batesville, MS concerning proposed BSL.
5/10/2007 Letter to reporter V. Roley at Mississippi Press concerning Batesville, MS proposed BSL.
5/10/2007 Letter of opposition to the North Carolina General Assembly concerning SB92.
5/11/2007 Letter and info packet to Jackson County, MS Board of Supervisors concerning proposed BSL.
5/12/2007 Letter to reporter George Knapp KLAS-TV Las Vegas concerning his two part report on Black Market Dog Breeders.
5/14/2007 Letter and info packet to Benton, KY Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
5/14/2007 Letter and info packet to Marion County, WV County Commissioners concerning proposed BSL.
5/16/2007 Letter and info packet to Jacksonville, AR Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
5/16/2007 Letter and info packet to Hutchinson, KS Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
5/16/2007 Letter and info packet to Gainesville, GA Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
5/16/2007 Response of thanks from Jill Young, City Managers office Gainesville GA.
5/16/2007 Letter and info packet to Lorain, OH Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
5/17/2007 Letter and info packet to Long Beach, MS Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL
5/17/2007 Four word response from Alderman Robert Stroud of Jacksonville, AR.
5/18/2007 Letter and info packet to Marion County, WV Commissioners concerning proposed changes in county dog laws.
5/18/2007 Letter from Linda Dulaney City Clerk’s Office Jacksonville, AR stating that she didn’t have Jacksonville’s newly enacted BSL in her computer, and couldn’t e-mail it to RDOWS.
5/19/2007 Letter and info packet to Hesperia, CA Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
5/19/2007 Letter and info packet to Ansonia, CT Mayor James T. Della Volpe concerning proposed BSL.
5/20/2007 Letter and info packet to Mayor and Metro Council East Baton Rouge Parish, LA concerning proposed BSL
5/20/2007 Letter to Merritt Clifton asking for a definition of “pit bull”.
5/20/2007 Response from Merritt Clifton
“People like to split hairs over breed definitions.I’m not interested in that kind of game-playing. I have kept separate logs for the different breeds people claim dogs are, but broad categorizations are much more meaningful”
5/20/2007 Response from Councilman Pat Culbertson East Baton Rouge Parish.
5/21/2007 Letter and info packet to Fairfield. OH Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
5/21/2007 Letter to Daviess County, KY Fiscal Court concerning proposed BSL.
5/21/2007 Letter opposing CA AB1634 to most California newspapers.
5/22/2007 Dog Politics posted RDOWS List of banned/restricted breeds http://dogpolitics.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/05/list_of_banned_.html
5/22.2007 Sent RDOWS Position Statement on CA AB 1634 to the entire California General Assembly
5/23/2007 Letter and info packet to Spaulding County, GA Commissioners concerning proposed BSL.
5/23/2007 Letter and info packet to Lawrence County TN Commissioners concerning proposed BSL.
5/23/2007 The Conservative Voice published “The Animal Rights Myth of Pet Overpopulation” by Cherie Graves http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/25351.html
5/23/2007 Letter to News Editor at KSBI-TV concerning errors in its reporting.
5/23/2007 Letter and info packet to Kern County, CA Commissioners concerning proposed M S/N.
5/29/2007 Letter and info packet to Cabot, AR Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
5/29/2007 Letter, and info packet to Portage, WI Common Council concerning proposed BSL.
5/29/2007 Yet another letter to the Indianapolis, IN Metro-Council concerning proposed BSL.
5/31/2007 Letter, info packet, and copy of New York State Law pre-empting BSL to Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
6/1/2007 Letter to Cliff Albert, radio personality who supported passage of CA AB1634 on air.
6/2/2007 Letter and info packet to League City, TX Mayor and Council concerning proposed changes in their dog laws.
6/4/2007 Received letter of thanks from League City, TX Councilwoman Phyllis Sanborn.
6/5/2007 Letter and info packet to Marshfield, MA Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
6/6/2007 RDOWS Secretary and Media Liaison wrote to CA Representative Lloyd Levine opposing CA AB 1634.
6/7/2007 Letter and info packet to the Town of Rolla, MO Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
6/7/2007 Letter and info packet to Little Rock, AR Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
6/13/2007 Letter, info packet, Model Dog Owner Regulations and Illinois state law prohibiting BSL to the Village of Crossville, IL Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
6/14/2007 Story concerning Crossville’s illegal BSL in Carmi-Times; http://www.carmitimes.com/articles/2007/06/14/news/news2.txt
6/14/2007 Letter, and Texas state law prohibiting to El Paso, TX Mayor and Council concerning news report of proposed BSL.
6/14/2007 Letter to Minnesota Representative John Lesch concerning his proposed Bill to ban five, or more breeds of dogs in Minnesota.
6/15/2007 Received response from Karla Parra Legislative Aide to El Paso, TX Councilwoman Melina Castro saying the news report of proposed BSL in El Paso was in error.
6/15/2007 Letter and info packet to the Town of Hampton Falls, NH Mayor and Board of Selectmen concerning proposed BSL.
6/15/2007 Sent copy of Minnesota Constitution Article 1. Bill of Rights to Representative John Lesch of Minnesota.
6/15/2007 Letter to reporter Furst at the Post-Bulletin concerning Re. John Lesch’s proposed BSL.
6/16/2007 Letter and info packet to town of Beebe, AR Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
6/16/2007 Sent copy of Arkansas Bill of Rights to Mayor and Council Beebe, AR.
6/16/2007 Letter and info packet to the city of Cabot, AR. Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
6/18/2007 Letter and info packet to the town of Phillipsburg, NJ concerning proposed BSL.
6/19/2007 Letter and info packet to Warden, WA Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
6/19/2007 Dexter, MO Board of Aldermen Table BSL; http://www.dailystatesman.com/story/1218243.html
6/19/2007 Letter to Dexter, MO thanking Board of Aldermen for tabling BSL, and seeking alternative legislation.
6/19/2007 Letter and info packet to New Florence, MO Mayor and Board of Aldermen concerning proposed BSL.
6/20/2007 Second letter, and copy of Pennsylvania’s BSL pre-emption by state law to Phillipsburg, PA Mayor, and Council concerning their attempt to enact BSL.
6/21/2007 Letter to California Senator Jenny Oropeza thanking her for opposing CA AB1634.
6/21/2007 Second letter to Phillipsburg, NJ with copy of New Jersey state law pre-empting BSL concerning their attempted enactment of BSL.
6/21/2007 Letter and info packet to Paris, AR Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
6/23/2007 Letter to Editor St. Cloud Times (MN) http://www.sctimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070623/OPINION/106230032/1006/NEWS01
6/28/2007 Letter to East Baton Rouge Parish requesting a copy of their BSL ordinance. NO RESPONSE
6/28/2007 Letter to North Adams, MA Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
6/28/2007 Letter, and copy of Illinois state law pre-empting BSL to the Village of Plainfield, IL concerning their proposed BSL.
6/29/2007 Received letter of thanks from North Adams, MA Councilman Chris Tremblay.
6/30/2007 Letter to Village of Westville, IL Mayor and Board of Trustees with Illinois state law to show that BSL violates Illinois state law.
7/1/2007 Letter and info packet to Dover, DE Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
7/4/2007 Indianapolis Mayor Backs off Breed Ban; http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070704/LOCAL19/707040443/-1/LOCAL17
7/4/2007 Letter and info packet to Pascagoula, MS Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
7/4/2007 Letter and info packet to Sulphur, LA Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
7/4/2007 Manhattan, KS: No BSL For Now; http://www.themercury.com/News/article.aspx?articleId=2d925de1834d42a9bf69879785cdf2c2
7/4/2007 Letter from Sulphur, LA Councilwoman Nancy Tower thanking RDOWS for info, and requesting that the packet be sent to Coty Attorney Skipper Drost. We did.
7/5/2007 Crossville, IL Rescinds Pit Bull Ban: http://www.carmitimes.com/articles/2007/07/05/news/news2.txt
7/7/2007 Letter and info packet to Rolla, MO Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
7/10/2007 Letter and info packet to Canton, OH Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
7/10/2007 Letter, info packet, and Pennsylvania state law pre-empting BSL to Reading, PA concerning proposed BSL.
7/10/2007 Letter and info packet to Selma, AL Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
7/11/2007 Received letter from Selma, AL Councilwoman Dr. Geraldine Allen thanking RDOWS for the info packet.
7/11/2007 Faxed letter to California Senators Tom McClintock and Cox concerning RDOWS opposition to CA AB1634.
7/13/2007 Letter and info packet to Sumter County, SC Administrator and Council concerning proposed changes in county’s dog laws.
7/13/2007 Letter to Jon Provost thanking him for testifying in opposition to CA AB1634.
7/14/2007 RDOWS in Greg Sellnow’s Column; http://postbulletin.com/newsmanager/templates/localnews_story.asp?z=41&a=299998
7/16/2007 Letter to LA Times concerning CA AB1634.
7/18/2007 Letter to Washington state Representative Tom Campbell thanking him for re-introducing the non-discrimination insurance Bill HB1105 into Washington’s legislative session.
7/19/2007 Letter to Frostburg, MD Mayor and Commissioners concerning proposed BSL.
7/19/2007 Letter and info packet to Greenville, MS Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
7/21/2007 Letter to Montclair, NJ Mayor and Council concerning proposed anti-tethering law.
7/22/2007 Letter to Atlanta Journal Constitution to set the record straight on Fallacy filled article.
7/25/2007 RDOWS Arkansas Director, and Chairman of Responsible Owners of Arkansas Dogs (ROADs) Inc. did a television interview with FOX affiliate in Little Rock that was broadcast at 5:00 PM, 6:00 PM, and 9:00 PM concerning the breed specific dog laws in Arkansas, and the upcoming legal challenge.
7/25/2007 Letter of thanks to Sandra Kirk of FOX 16 Little Rock for Roger Schnyer’s interview.
7/25/2007 Letter to the Oklahoma State Legislature opposing Representative Paul Wesselhoft’s proposed Felony Dog Bite Bill.
7/26/2007 Letter to the Ohio State Legislature opposing HB 189 Ohio’s Proposed Dangerous Dog Bill.
7/27/2007 Letter, info packet and PA State Law pre-empting BSL to Exeter Township, PA Chairman, and Board of Supervisors concerning proposed BSL.
7/29/2007 Letter of thanks from Oklahoma Representative Earl Sears.
7/30/2007 Letter, and info packet to Laurel, MS Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
7/30/2007 Letter and info packet to Corinth, MS Mayor and Board of Aldermen concerning proposed BSL.
7/30/2007 Letter, and info packet to Clinton, MS Mayor and Board of Aldermen concerning proposed BSL.
7/30/2007 Letter and info packet to Richland MS. Mayor and Board of Aldermen concerning proposed BSL.
7/30/2007 Letter and info packet mailed to Spencer, SD Mayor and Council concerning the passage of BSL. NO RESPONSE
7/30/2007 Letter to Jackson, MS Mayor and Board of Aldermen concerning proposed BSL.
7/30/2007 Letter, and info packet to Marion SD Mayor and Council concerning the enactment of BSL.
7/31/2007 Letter and info packet to Beebe AR Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
8/2/2007 Letter to Ohio Supreme Court concerning Tellings decision.
8/7/2007 Letter and info packet to Hartford City, IN Mayor and Common Council concerning proposed BSL.
8/8/2007 Letter and info packet to McFarland, KS City Attorney Norbert Marek concerning proposed BSL.
8/8/2007 Letter and info packet to Sweetwater, TN Mayor and Commission concerning proposed BSL.
8/9/2007 Letter and info packet to Monterey, TN Mayor and Board of Aldermen concerning proposed BSL.
8/11/2007 Letter and info packet to Wichita, KS Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
8/12/2007 Received letter of thanks from Wichita, KS Councilman Jim Skelton.
8/12/2007 Letter and info packet to Rogers, AR Mayor and Board of Aldermen concerning proposed BSL.
8/12/2007 Second letter, and info packet to Dover DE concerning proposed BSL.
8/13/2007 Roger Schnyer attended Ward, AR City Council meeting. The Ward Council voted to not enact BSL.
8/14/2007 Received letter from Wichita, KS Councilwoman Sharon Fearey thanking RDOWS for info packet.
8/15/2007 DOG BAN REJECTED IN WARD; http://www.arkansasleader.com/2007/08/top-story-dog-ban-rejected-in-ward.html
8/19/2007 RDOWS REPORTS NEW DIRECTORS AND OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST
8/20/2007 RDOWS corresponds with reporter Ruben Rosario of the St. Paul MN Pioneer Press concerning Representative John Lesch’s proposed breed ban in Minnesota.
9/4/2007 Received letter from Ohio Supreme Court acknowledging receipt of RDOWS letter.
9/6/2007 Letter and info packet to Arkadelphia, AR Mayor and Board of Directors concerning proposed BSL.
9/7/2007 Letter and info packet to Youngstown, Ohio Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
9/7/2007 Letter and info packet to Cincinnati, Ohio Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
9/8/2007 Letter to Florida Representative Perry E, Thurston concerning RDOWS opposition to HB 101 a Bill to overturn Florida’s state level BSL pre-emption.
9/8/2007 Letter to New Jersey Senator James “Sonny” McCullough concerning BSL.
9/11/2007 Received letter from Cincinnati, OH Councilwoman Y. Laketa Cole, president Pro-tem thanking RDOWS for info packet.
9/12/2007 Received letter from Cincinnati Councilman Leslie Ghiz thanking RDOWS for info packet.
9/13/2007 RDOWS sends letter of thanks to American Dog Breeders Association, Inc. for all of their help and support.
9/13/2007 Letter of request to Beebe AR for a copy of their BSL ordinance. NO RESPONSE
9/17/2007 Letter and info packet to Takoma Park. MD Mayor and Board of Aldermen concerning proposed BSL.
9/19/2007 Letter and info packet to Mr. Phil Eldridge, Esq. City Attorney for Geneva County, Alabama concerning proposed BSL.
9/21/2007 Letter and info packet to Canfield, Ohio Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
9/22/2007 Letter and info packet to Youngstown, Ohio Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
9/23/2007 Letter and info packet to Sandusky, Ohio Mayor and Board of Commissioners concerning proposed BSL.
9/24/2007 Received a letter of thanks to RDOWS from Sandusky, OH Commissioner Dan Kaman.
9/24/2007 Letter to Baltimore County, MD Executive, and County Council concerning proposed BSL.
9/24/2007 Letter to Halls, TN Mayor Trent McManus concerning proposed BSL.
9/24/2007 RDOWS TOOLS FOR THE ENDANGERED DOG OWNER: https://rdows.wordpress.com/2007/09/25/rdows-tools-for-the-endangered-dog-owner-2/
9/25/2007 Request to reprint TOOLS FOR THE ENDANGERED DOG OWNER from Denise Groenwald, President GSDC of North Georgia -Permission granted
9/25/2007 Letter and info packet to Jackson County NC Chairman and Board of Commissioners concerning proposed BSL.
9/26/2007 Letter to Abbeville, LA Mayor and Council concerning a newspaper report of possible BSL.
10/1/2007 BSL LEADS TO UNSPEAKABLE CRUELTY; https://rdows.wordpress.com/2007/09/29/breed-specific-legislation-leads-to-unspeakable-cruelty/
10/1/2007 Letter, Illinois State Law and info packet to Johnston City, IL Mayor and Council concerning proposed BSL.
10/2/2007 Letter, and info packet to Nebraska senator Vickie McDonald who proposed changes in Nebraska’s dog laws.
10/2/2007 Received letter from Nebraska Senator Vickie McDonald’s Senior Legislative Aide Mikki McCann assuring RDOWS that Senator McDonald is not interested in introducing BSL, and that the Senator understands the need to hold dog owners responsible for the care, training and control of their animals.
10/8/2007 Letter and info packet to Mayor Robert “Bob” Morris of Somerville, TN concerning their BSL.
10/8/2007 Letter and info packet to Dyer, TN Mayor and Council concerning enacted BSL.
10/9/2007 Letter, and info packet to Councilman Tim Pape of Fort Wayne, IN concerning proposed changes to their dog laws.
10/11/2007 TRUTHS FROM RDOWS; https://rdows.wordpress.com/2007/10/11/nathan-winograd%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%9credemption-the-myth-of-pet-overpopulation-and-the-no-kill-revolution-in-america%e2%80%9d-and-the-concept-of-nativism/
RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERS OF THE WESTERN STATES
P.O. Box 1406 Newport, WA 99156Web Site http://www.povn.com/rdows E-mail US email@example.comBlog https://rdows.wordpress.com E-mail List http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rdows Cherie Graves, Chairwoman, WA, (509) 447-2821Judy Schreiber-Dwornick, Assistant to the Chair, Director at Large, firstname.lastname@example.orgHermine Stover, Secretary, Press Liaison, CA, email@example.comArkansas Director, Roger Schnyer firstname.lastname@example.orgCalifornia Director, Jan Dykema email@example.comIllinois Director, Elizabeth Pensgard firstname.lastname@example.orgIndiana Director, Charles Coffman email@example.comIowa Director, Leisa Boysen firstname.lastname@example.orgMississippi Director, Dan Crutchfield email@example.comNevada Director, Ken Sondej firstname.lastname@example.orgOhio Director, Tiffany Skotnicky email@example.comOklahoma Director, Jade Harris firstname.lastname@example.org
Tennessee Director, Gina Cotton email@example.com
Texas Director, Alvin Crow firstname.lastname@example.org
POSITION STATEMENT ON BREED SPECIFIC LEGISLATION ã
Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States was formed October 15, 1989 to protect the rights, and interests of dog owners. Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States opposes breed specific legislation (BSL) on legal, and moral grounds, and upon the Rules of Reason that all laws must meet. Our position is that every dog owner is responsible for protecting the public from his/her dog.
Our research shows that in the majority of severe or fatal dog attacks there had been numerous, previous reports made to Animal Control that were not acted upon. Our research further shows that as shocking, and traumatic as severe or fatal dog attacks are, they are relatively uncommon occurrences in comparison to other causes of severe injury, or fatalities in the United States, given that the vast majority of Americans are dog owners. The likelihood of any pure-bred, registered dog being involved in a fatal attack upon a human being is infinitesimal.
MORALITY· BSL is based upon the urban myth of the “pit bull”, which is not a recognized breed of dog. Under the guise of banning “pit bulls” any breed may be thus identified. There are at least seventy-five actual breeds, plus any mixed breed now either banned from ownership, or restricted in ownership in the United States. That is about 1/5 of all recognized breeds.· BSL is inflammatory, and is based upon unproven beliefs, not facts.· BSL is under inclusive in that it only recognizes a threat to society from certain breeds, or mixed breeds of dogs. · BSL is over inclusive, as dogs are as varied within their breed, as are human beings within our ethnicity.· BSL by stipulating, and naming specific breeds as being dangerous indemnifies all of the unnamed breeds as being safe by exclusion. · BSL creates a false sense of public safety.· BSL does not address the irresponsible dog owner.· BSL punishes the law abiding dog owner.· BSL orders the death of dogs based solely upon their physical appearance.· BSL assumes that human beings are inferior to, and incapable of properly maintaining dogs of specific breeds, or appearance.
LEGALITY· BSL has been ruled unconstitutional in Court venues across the United States on grounds ranging from vagueness, to an infringement of property rights, to equal treatment, equal protection.· Dogs have been the domesticated traditional property of human beings for well over thirty-five thousand years. This tradition gives legal standing to dog owners based upon the IX Amendment of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the United States of America.· BSL violates the rights granted under the IV Amendment to the Bill of Rights.· BSL violates the rights granted under the V Amendment of the Bill of Rights.· BSL violates the rights granted under VI Amendment to the Bill of Rights.· BSL violates the rights granted under VIII Amendment to the Bill of Rights.· BSL violates the rights granted under XIV Amendment to the Bill of Rights.
· BSL creates a whole new criminal class, the dog owner
· BSL sets a legal precedent that unchallenged empowers the enacting body to add any, or all other dog breeds, or even domestic species of animals to the prohibition on ownership.
Zuniga v. San Mateo Dept. of Health Services (1990) 218 Cal. App. 3d 1521, 267 Cal. Rptr. 2d 755. The court found there was not sufficient evidence to prove Pit Bulls have an inherent nature of being dangerous.Carter v. Metro North Assocs. (1998) 255 A.D. 2d 251; 680 N.Y.S.2d 299 A New York appellate court determined that the alleged propensities of Pit Bull Terriers to behave more viciously than other breeds had not been authoritatively established.American Canine Foundation litigated the city of Huntsville Alabama in 2002 in a case that was heard by the Alabama Supreme Court. Huntsville v. Four Pit Bull Puppies
(Ala. 08-30-02), No.1010459, unreported. The court affirmed a trial court decision that American Pit Bull Terriers were not dangerous. On July 16th 2003 ACF brought forth a constitutional challenge against Ohio’s state law O.R.C. 955:11 that declares the Pit Bull vicious. The case was heard in the Toledo Municipal Court. The court found the American Pit Bull Terrier was not dangerous, and granted Pit Bull owners due process. Tellings v State of Ohio CRB02-15267In August 2004 a case American Canine Foundation assisted in was heard by the Ohio Supreme Court. State v. Cowan 103 Ohio St. 3d 144 , 2004 – Ohio – 4777 The court found ORC 955:22 violative of the right to be heard as applied to ORC955:11 which declared a specific breed of dog vicious in Ohio. The decision struck down Ohio’s breed specific legislation at the state level. Ohio was the only state to have this type of legislation at the state level.
§ 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia
§ 1982. Property rights of citizens
All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.
RULE OF REASON
- Laws must be reasonable.
- It is not reasonable to write animal behaviors, legal punishments, and criminal labels for animals into statutes that are enacted to structure human society.
- Animals must not be criminalized under laws that are intended to protect human rights, and to control human behaviors.
- It is unreasonable to write animal behavior into laws that no animal has the capacity to understand, answer to, or to function under.
- It is unreasonable to mete out criminal labels to animals, i.e. dangerous, or potentially dangerous. It is unreasonable to prescribe punishments to animals under our laws.
- It is unreasonable to remove the human owner from blame, or culpability for the actions of his/her animal(s).
- It is unreasonable to assume that every dog of a given breed, or physical appearance will behave in exactly the same manner.
- It is unreasonable to assume that every owner of every dog of a given breed, or physical appearance is irresponsible, negligent, or careless with his/her animal(s).
- Human error, carelessness, or negligence is the underlying factor behind every dog attack.
- Given the actual figures of severe dog attacks, or fatalities related to dog attacks per capita in the United States of America, dogs are not the threat to human life that the sensationalistic media, and urban myth would portray.
October 7, 2007
Enumclaw, Washington is one of eighteen cities in Washington to have breed bans. Enumclaw specifically bans, and prohibits possession of Bull Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, American Pit Bull Terriers, and any mixed breed of dog that contains as an element of its breeding any of the aforementioned breeds of dogs within their city limits. The city of Enumclaw abuts the King County Fairgrounds where several major dog shows are held. Persons attending the dog shows with the prohibited breeds are denied the use of services in the city of Enumclaw. One may not stay in a motel, buy gasoline, eat in a restaurant, or make purchases from a convenience store when they are in possession of any of the prohibited breeds of dogs.
Glen Bui, of the American Canine Foundation, and Cherie Graves, chairwoman of Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States are filing a lawsuit in the Western District Federal Court against the city of Enumclaw for violating their constitutional rights of travel, and commerce, and for discrimination. Neither are representing their respective organizations in this suit.
Glen Bui, and Cherie Graves spoke with attorney Peter Kram, of Tacoma who advised them that the case will cost approximately $50,000.00. Peter Kram is a judge-pro-tem, and is familiar with breed specific dog ordinances, and the harm that they do to innocent, responsible dog owners.
No other dog owners of the prohibited breeds were willing to join in the lawsuit. Both the American Canine Foundation, and Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States have offered help in funding the lawsuit, but neither organization has nearly enough funds to finance the entire cost of the suit. RDOWS has less than $1,000.00 in its treasury after helping to get Responsible Owners of Arkansas Dogs, Inc., up and running. We need help from the dog fancy. No donation is too small to help stamp out BSL.
To donate to the American Canine Foundation use PayPal email@example.com
Or make your check payable to American Canine foundation, and mail to ACF, 23969 N.E. SR3 Suite G101, Belfair, WA 98528
To donate to Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States use PayPal firstname.lastname@example.org or make your check payable to RDOWS, P.O. Box 1406, Newport, WA 99156
September 25, 2007
RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERS OF THE WESTERN STATES
P.O. Box 1406 Newport, WA 99156Web Site http://www.povn.com/rdows E-mail US email@example.comBlog https://rdows.wordpress.com E-mail List http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rdows Cherie Graves, Chairwoman, WA, (509) 447-2821Judy Schreiber-Dwornick, Assistant to the Chair, Director at Large, firstname.lastname@example.orgHermine Stover, Secretary, Press Liaison, CA, email@example.comArkansas Director, Roger Schnyer firstname.lastname@example.orgCalifornia Director, Jan Dykema email@example.comIllinois Director, Elizabeth Pensgard firstname.lastname@example.orgIndiana Director, Charles Coffman email@example.comIowa Director, Leisa Boysen firstname.lastname@example.orgMississippi Director, Dan Crutchfield email@example.comNevada Director, Ken Sondej firstname.lastname@example.orgOhio Director, Tiffany Skotnicky email@example.comOklahoma Director, Jade Harris firstname.lastname@example.org
Tennessee Director, Gina Cotton email@example.com
Texas Director, Alvin Crow firstname.lastname@example.org
MISSION STATEMENTResponsible Dog Owners of the Western States was founded October 15, 1989. The group’s name may be abbreviated R.D.O.W.S. It is a not for profit group. RDOWS MISSION IS TO PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC SERVICES
- Provide speakers for dog clubs, service clubs, and community centers throughout the western states.
- Have information booths at dog shows
- Formulate alternative legislation to that which infringes upon the rights of people to own or utilize their dogs.
- Attend council, commissioner, and committee meetings.
- Conduct aggressive letter writing campaigns to city councils, county commissioners state legislatures, newspapers, magazines, TV, and radio stations.
- Keep the dog owning public informed of any legislation directly concerning ownership and use of dogs.
- Actively work to cause reasonable dog legislation to be enacted.
- Oppose legislation that infringes upon any citizen’s right to responsibly own animals.
- We actively fight legislation that undermines the right to own, show, hunt, or breed dogs, including breeding bans, mandatory spay/neuter, and breed specific codes or ordinances.
- RDOWS promotes the responsible ownership, care, nurture, husbandry, and treatment of dogs.
September 25, 2007
Roger Schnyer, Chairman of Responsible Owners of Arkansas Dogs, said “ROADs has incorporated, and set up a bank account with the purpose of posing a legal challenge to the Arkansas breed specific dog ordinances in Federal Court. The attorney Andrew Clark of the firm Clark and Byarley has been retained to try the cases. Mr. Clark is preparing the cases, and will file the suits in Federal Court on our behalf, and will seek immediate injunctive relief for our plaintiffs who reside in Beebe, Lonoke, and Jacksonville. We expect that the cases will be filed the week of September 17th.”
“The American Canine Foundation is lending its experience, and its body of case law to our challenge. Dr. I. Lehr Brisbin will be among the expert witnesses, his testimony is invaluable to our case. This team has been the most successful in prevailing in legal challenges against breed specific ordinances, and legislation since its inception in the United States.”
ROADs, Inc. Chairman Roger Schnyer stated, “We know that other cities in Arkansas have enacted breed specific ordinances, too. We just do not have the financial means to include all of them in our suits. When we prevail, it will automatically cause the other cities to have to repeal their breed specific ordinances. We are working hard for all Arkansas dog owners.”
Breed specific dog ordinances violate not only Constitutional rights, they violate civil rights. They are based upon discrimination, that discrimination is directed at the dog owner through his/her choice of dog. They also violate a person’s right to be innocent until proven guilty in a Court of Law. Breed specific dog ordinances remove American citizen’s rights to due process. They also violate property rights. Breed specific dog ordinances take away the burden of proof being with the accuser, and placing it solely upon the accused. These are violations upon the most basic principles of American law.
“Dog owners in Beebe, Jacksonville, and Lonoke Arkansas are having their dogs confiscated, and killed by animal control based solely upon the dog’s physical appearance. These owners are under the immediate threat of the loss of their dogs. Responsible Owners of Arkansas Dogs, Inc., needs your generous help in our fight to overturn Arkansas breed specific dog ordinances. ROADs, Inc., does not profit from your donations. Legal challenges are expensive. We must bring in expert witnesses, and we must pay all filing fees, and attorney fees. The American Dog Breeders Association has agreed to match funds up to $5,000.00. Please help us protect your animal ownership, and animal husbandry rights. We fight for your right to responsibly own any dog.” Roger Schnyer said.
Please make your checks payable to: Responsible Owners of Arkansas Dogs, Inc.and mail to;Responsible Owners of Arkansas Dogs, Inc.C/O Arvest Bank P.O. Box 57
Cabot Arkansas 72023
Or donate by PayPal
Responsible Owners of Arkansas Dogs Inc. is a proud affiliate of Responsible Dog Owners of The Western States
October 3, 2006
TOOLS FOR THE ENDANGERED DOG OWNER
The animal rights movement as those who would take our animals from our care, and nurture prefer to be known, is the enemy of all owners/breeders, and practitioners of animal husbandry. They support, and encourage the passage of breed specific dog ordinances that started with the “pit bull”, and have expanded to name upwards of seventy-five recognized breeds, plus any mixed breed that contains as an element of it’s make-up any of those breeds. They support, and expound upon mandatory spay/neuter of all privately owned dogs, and cats, as though they have a personal proprietary interest in the animals that are rightfully owned by others. They push for mandatory licensing of pet animal husbandry practitioners, better known as breeders. Their impetus is to use our legislative bodies, at every level to remove our animals from us, and to annihilate tens of thousands of years of the human/ animal bond. They are trained to use techniques that make them appear to be experts on all aspects of animal ownership, and laws. I have chosen to call this movement the animal takers. It is in our own best interest to learn to recognize their strategies, so that they will not manipulate us. Animal taking zealots endeavor to deceive people into believing breed myths. The following chapter deals with animal takers myths of the absolute as pertains to the “pit bull”.
Chapter 1.) MYTHS OF THE ABSOLUTE
Absolute: All pit bulls are dangerous, unpredictable killers.
Hmmm, wouldn’t that make them predictable? Not one of the numerous registries that operate in any nation registers a breed of dog as “Pit Bull”. The term “pit bull”, used to mean any dog whose owner used it for pit fighting. It was a functional term that has been distorted, and used now to define actual breeds of dogs. Under the guise of banning “pit bulls”, upwards of twenty-five actual breeds of dogs have been named in bans, prohibitions, or restrictive ownership ordinances. Dogs are as individual as are we human beings. No two dogs within a given breed are exactly the same, just as no two human beings within any given race are exactly the same. Similarities to each other are either physical breed characteristics, or learned behaviors. It is not only erroneous to characterize all dogs of a given breed as being exactly alike it is exceedingly foolish.
Absolute: All pit bull breeders/owners are dog fighters.
This is not only a false accusation it is libelous. The American Pit Bull Terrier, the American Staffordshire Terrier, the Bull Terrier, and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier owners have a very high percentage rate of conformation show entries, obedience trial entries, and are engaged with their dogs in sanctioned sport competitions such as fly ball, agility, weight pull, schutzhund, tracking, when compared to other breeds of dogs owners. Check with registry statistics. We do not deny that dog fighting exists. It is not an openly conducted activity. In truth dog fighting has increased exponentially since the Humane Society of the United States set its sights on the once legal, and sanctioned sport, that was conducted under strict rules. HSUS fought for legislation to make dog fighting illegal. They succeeded, and dog fighting is bigger than it ever was as a legal, and sanctioned activity. The preceding statements are not meant to condone dog fighting, but to give a historical perspective. The vast majority of dog owners whose dogs are targeted in breed specific ordinances are law abiding citizens, and are responsible for, caring, and nurturing of their dogs.
Absolute: All pit bulls are bred to possess supernatural traits.
That “pit bulls” possess locking jaws is the most common mythical misconception. No canine has the ability to lock, or unlock its jaw. There are three head types in dogs. Not one of which has a lock. There is the brachy-cephalic, it is the pushed in face with the protruding under jaw like the Pug dog in the movie Milo and Otis. It has the least bite strength of all head types. The mesocephalic is the most common type head in dogs. The Dalmatian is a mesocephalic type of dog breed. The length of muzzle approximates the length of top skull. It is the strongest configuration. The third head type is the dolicho-cephalic. It is the long narrow head with a long muzzle. The Collie is a dolichocephalic type breed. These breeds do not depend upon strength of jaw, but upon their teeth that are used for slashing. Most of the breeds that are named in breed specific legislation fall under the mesocephalic head type, but not all, there are several of the brachy-cephalic breeds, and even a few dolichocephalic breeds. This should be indicative to any thinking person that the umbrella term, “pit bull”, is a convenient blind for city councils, and county boards to use to remove all domestic dogs from ownership, in a piecemeal way.
The not stoppable, appear out of nowhere, disappear, attack without warning, etc., myths are the stuff of horror movies. These stories confer supernatural powers on domestic dog breeds, but have no basis in reality. Newspaper articles are reported in such a manner as to evoke fear in the reader, and to reinforce the urban myth. They offer no proofs, only rhetoric. As dog owners our responses to these reports must be reality based, and we must openly question any reports of the supernatural kind. All dogs are corporeal. No dog is capable of appearing, or of disappearing. All dogs are stoppable. All attacks are triggered. The people, who are involved, may not know what triggered the attack, or they may know, and choose not to divulge what they know to the media, and to the police.
Absolute: All “pit bull” breeders are geniuses of genetic engineering
If we believe the myths that surround the “pit bull”, then we must believe that their breeders possess an innate ability to manipulate their dog’s genes to reproduce without fail a monster of mythical proportions. These breeders can do what the greatest geneticists in the world cannot; they can make a dog that conforms unerringly to a prescribed, and uniform mold, each and every time. Not even automobile manufactures can make identical cars when using all standard parts.
Absolute: All “pit bull” breeders are imbeciles of genetic engineering
In a direct contradiction to the myth above, the detractors describe the physical ailments, and crippling genetic defects that are purportedly rampant in the “pit bull”, hip/shoulder dysplasia, myocardia, cataracts one would believe that their breeders are incapable of producing a sound physical specimen of dog. If we believe this myth, then breed specific legislation is a waste of time, and money to implement, and enforce, because the dogs are well on their way to extinction. Genetic defects are reported in purebred dogs because their breeders are the ones who spend the money, and care enough about their dogs to test them. Breeders strive to produce healthier dogs through eliminating dogs that are defective from their breeding programs. To use the facts that purebred dogs have defects in order to sully the reputations of breeders is an exploitation of the breeders concern for producing healthy animals.
Absolute: All BSL proponents are pit bull experts, but can’t define them
Ask the most vociferous “pit bull” hater to define the term. You will quickly discover that a “pit bull” is any dog which animal control deems as such. There is no set definition. There are at least twenty-five actual breeds, plus uncounted mixed breed dogs that are now labeled as “pit bulls”, and the list is growing. The takers, and various legislative bodies have wrongfully cited, or misused breed standards as a means of identifying dog breeds. Breed identification is not the purpose of a breed standard. A breed standard is a written device that is used by dog show judges to determine, or measure the standard quality of the conformation of each pure-bred, registered dog of any given breed in the show ring, at a sanctioned dog show. The judge is not guessing what breed is being judged. Dog show judges are tested on their knowledge of the breed standard, and it’s application prior to being licensed to use that breed standard in a sanctioned show. A judge is tested, and licensed separately for each breed that he, or she is allowed to judge. Breed standards are copyrighted documents. American Kennel Club parent breed clubs are owners of their breed’s standard copyright. Other breed standard copyrights are property of the breed registry. Any misuse of dog breed standards is a violation of intellectual property rights of the copyright owner.
Absolute: Only titled, health tested show dogs should be allowed to breed.
This removes a whole dimension of working dogs, hunting dogs, service dogs that will never see the inside of a show-ring. The whole idea of show dogs is elitist on one hand, and arbitrary on the other hand. It is elitist to believe that a dog that has earned conformation titles is superior to a dog that works on a cattle ranch, and earns it’s way, and provides help to it’s owner. The rancher will put far more value on his dog’s working ability than upon it’s conforming to a show standard of quality. The rancher is far better equipped to know whether his dog should be used in a breeding program than any arbitrary government body. The idea that government imposes mandates upon who may, or may not practice animal husbandry, and mandate an impractical standard for the animals to be used within that program, exceeds the scope of government, and is a taking of ownership, and use rights.
Health testing is a tool that is at the disposal of any animal owner/ breeder who wishes, or needs to use it. The test results show the tested animal’s health for the day that the tests were done. They do not project guarantees into the future health of the animal, nor do clear test results guarantee that any offspring of the tested animal will test clear. Testing is an option, it should never be mandated.
Absolute: It is wrong for a breeder to profit from breeding, and selling dogs.
A dog breeder is supposed to spend thousands of dollars, and not see a return that will be reinvested back into the dogs. According to the detractors of dog breeders, in order to be responsible, a breeder must have endlessly deep pockets, and always spend, never, ever breaking even, let alone operate a real business based upon doing what one loves, and is proficient in. How would this absolute myth apply to any other business? Tell it to ATT, FORD, YAHOO, MICROSOFT, TYSON, H$U$, PeTA. In any business the measure of success is to see a financial return that is based upon the quality, desirability, and usability of said product.
Absolute: All dog/cat/pet breeders must be licensed, and obtain breeding permits
Animal husbandry is an ancient, noble, and respected human occupation. Its beginnings are lost in the remote past. A license is a temporary, revocable permit that is issued by government that allows the holder to have something, or to do something that is illegal to have, or to do without the license. This is simply another ploy to remove our animal ownership, and use rights. Our animals do not belong to the government. We do not live under a socialist, or a communist government that holds ownership over people, and their property.
Absolute: All dogs must be spayed/neutered
No government in the United States of America has the power to mandate invasive surgical procedures be performed upon privately owned animals. Animals belong to their owners. Animal’s reproductive organs likewise belong to the owners. Governments do not have the power to take away constitutional, or traditional property rights. It is solely up to we the people to stand firmly, and to refuse to capitulate to the taking of our ownership, use, and property rights in our animals. This is a legislated extinction of domestic pets.
Chapter 2.) RECOGNIZE ANIMAL TAKER TACTICS
Personal attacks take the place of evidence
Once you have made logical inroads into the taker’s ideology, you will be a target for personal attacks, especially if you have a website, or you are an officer, or a director in any dog/cat club, or organization. You may be accused of being a “shill”. Your appearance, or choice of apparel may be critiqued. There is nothing too despicable for these takers to stoop to when trying to discredit us.
Goading us into anger
The takers are skilled in haranguing, if we show the least irritation that is where they will concentrate their attack. If we watch carefully, and learn their techniques, we can avoid being goaded into anger.
Changing the subject
The takers will ask personal questions to try to take the topic where they want it to go. We must be alert, and stay on track. Our information is far more important than their ideology. Our reasons for joining a blog, or a public forum is to put useful, educational information into the hands of the readers, and to expose the animal takers for the ideological zealots who are bent upon removing our pets from us.
Attempt to divide the defenders
The takers will be working together to reinforce their position. They will try to detract from the valid points that the defenders make. One of their frequently used tactics is to use personal attacks that are aimed at the defenders, or at their dogs. It is very important for our side to reinforce our position without using the rude, personal attacks that are often employed by the takers.
Promoting “breed/breeder” hatred
Breeder is not a four-letter word. The takers will make it appear to be in the same context as child molester, rapist, murderer, or any number of heinous criminal activities. A breeder is a practitioner of the ancient, and noble art/science of animal husbandry. It is a legal business, and an admirable calling. Without breeders we would have no dog breeds, nor would we have any of our domestic animal species. That is why breeders are so hated, and vilified by the takers. Their goal is a complete severance of the human/animal bond. Our dogs/animals are the product of our applied art/science. In the minds of the takers our animals are not worthy of life, as they are the product of our, their breeder’s, vision, and effort.
Accusing the defenders of doing whatever is true of themselves
As chairwoman of Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States, I was accused of being a shill for the animal industry. My accuser refused to divulge any information as to who, or what entity or group that she/he was fronting for. It was obvious that this person was promoting an agenda of BSL, breeder licensing, and mandatory spay/neuter. It was a very slick and polished presentation.
Hide behind anonymity
Forums or blogs allow screen names to be used so as to hide the identity of the person who is commenting. The supporters of restrictive, and oppressive animal legislation tend not to use their real identity. I always use my own name, and I sign with all of my contact information. I want everyone who reads what I write to know that I have the courage of my convictions. I want everyone to know how to contact me should they want, or need any more information.
Claim to be experts, yet show no credentials
Having been involved in debates with the takers on public forums I always put forth all of my credentials. Any person who is promoting an agenda but refuses to divulge anything about them self on a professional level is not believable. These are the people that are filling blogs, and public forums with the takers agenda. They offer no credentials only a very polished presentation. The presentation hardly varies by a word or two from forum, to forum carried by a scripted anonymous army. Always ask who, or what organization that they represent. Ask why they hide behind the shield of anonymity if they are truly such advocates.
Attempt to discredit those defenders who do have credentials
Any defender who is accessible through running a search engine may be made the target of the attack. This person may be challenged on his/her physical appearance, choice of wearing apparel, and any number of things that have no bearing upon the subject matter of the discussion. I was asked if I was a member of the NRA. I did not respond. Neither the question, nor my answer would have been of any benefit to the topic under discussion. My personal website was brought into the discussion. It is important to recognize these tactics that are used to discredit us, it is a tactic to move the conversation away from the topic.
Isolate one defender to befriend, and another to denigrate.
A divide, and conquer technique is frequently utilized to distract the defenders. One defender may be befriended by one of those pushing the taker’s agenda, while several others may gang up on a different defender. This tactic is quite often very successfully used against novice defenders.
Chapter 3.) ANIMAL TAKER PERSONAS THAT MAY BE ENCOUNTERED
The animal lover
Example; “I have a pit bull, but I believe that they should all be spayed, and neutered, and the owners licensed. What are you afraid of?” The opening statement is an opinion. The question is an assumption that we are clinging to a baseless fear concerning the relinquishment of the ownership of our animal, and its reproductive organs.
Animal taking zealots may employ a false victim to gain sympathy. This person will call for a ban based upon a claim of having a friend, or a relative who was maimed, or killed by a “pit bull”. This person is unable to give any provable facts when pinned down by a defender.
The “objective” person
May claim that he/she owns no dog, but agrees with the takers point of view. Ignore this person. Why call attention to him/her? It does our side no good, and is a wasted effort. This is another distraction technique.
The sleeper agent
Disguises him/herself as an owner supporter when in fact he/she is an agent provocateur. This is Mr./Ms. Perfect who does everything by the book. You know the book. It might be that cookbook with all of the perfect pictures that no real person in a real kitchen could ever replicate. Those photos are supposed to be reality, but no matter how hard we strive, we mere mortals will never create the false reality of Mr./Ms. Perfect.
Animal taking zealots accuse breeders/owners of being irresponsible for not buying into the totalitarian propaganda of mandatory spay/neuter, breed bans, or mandatory breeder licensing. The takers attack on a very personal level here. We must ask where the precedent for all of this taking of our animals comes from. We must ask where this has been in effect, and for proof that it works. San Mateo, Ca is the only place that comes to mind for setting a precedent on mandatory spay/neuter, and mandatory breeder licensing. The dog breeders compromised with the takers, and lost their rights. Even so, it is a dismal failure. Point it out after arming yourself with information.
Animal taking zealots employ actions, and words to put animal owners on the defensive. That is okay; we are defending our ownership, and our use rights.
Chapter 4.) PROTECTING YOUR ANIMALS AND YOUR RIGHTS
Do not hide behind anonymity. Only those who are not open, and above board have need to hide behind the screen of anonymity, think Wizard of Oz. If you are honestly concerned about retaliation, do not join in a public forum, or blog. Put a credential behind your name. If you belong to a dog club you can add “Member, Alpha Dog Club” behind your name. It lends credibility.
Stay on topic
It is very easy to be taken off track by a skilled activist agitator. They will ask personal questions. They will do, say, or write anything to devolve a logical defense into a free-for-all, name-calling debacle. Think before you write. Your response is not only going out to the agitator, it is going out to an audience that you want to educate.
Ignore personal attacks
Point out personal attacks that are directed at you, but refuse to lower yourself to defending them. Personal attacks that are made by strangers are diversions. Do no allow yourself to be diverted along a path of the attacker’s choosing. Use your free will. You get to choose how, and to whom to respond. Ignoring the attacker, and putting your point across strengthens your position.
Prove every point that you make when defending our position to retain our ownership and use rights. Never write, or say anything in a public forum that you cannot immediately prove. If in doubt, leave it out.
Humor slays zealots, they do so want to be taken seriously. Ridicule, done as gentle humor brings a perspective that simple denial will not. The humorist is generally perceived as having superior knowledge. He/she not only sees the joke, he/she shares it.
Never allow anger to take control over your writing, or speaking
It is okay to write, “This makes me angry.” It is not okay to allow anger to take you to a place that is harmful to the dog owner’s positive image. Our detractors are portraying us as the out of mainstream fringe element. We are the only one’s who have the power to dispel the projected image. Each individual dog owner is responsible for ensuring that he/she is perceived as a law abiding, respectable citizen who is concerned with public safety, as well as protecting the rights, and freedoms that are characterized in our Constitution.
Treat the enemy with politeness, and respect
Give your adversary the benefit of being a fellow human being. Being polite and respectful, even after being verbally abused shows the general public that you are secure in your position. People will certainly forget your name, but they will always remember how you made them feel. When we are writing on a public forum, it is extremely important to make the entire readership feel comfortable with our point of view. We must treat each person as though he/she were an invited guest that we want to share our message with. Our objective is to win the hearts, and minds of the readers who are not posting. We are dealing with two different groups of people. We are firstly dealing with the promoters of the taking of our animals. Secondly we are dealing with the average citizen who is not caught up in the struggle, but has no doubt been adversely affected by the urban myths that so permeate our society. We will never change the minds of the takers. That is not our objective. Our objective toward them is to blow huge gaping holes in their ideological arguments, so that the secondary group starts to have doubts about their agenda. Our next objective is to speak with logic, to prove our points, to bring in the laws that are on the books, and to persuade the citizens that we are more like them, than are the detractors. It is human nature to align with those who sound the most as they do.
Expose the lies, distortions, and myths
Do not enter into a battle of ideology that you have not made preparation to win. Before joining in a blog, or a public forum be prepared. The takers come prepared. They have read, and book-marked every book written about dog fighting, or fighting dogs. Richard Stratton’s books may be introduced into the discussion. He may be quoted as the final authority in order to bolster their position. They will apply his writing to not only the dogs that he writes about, they apply it to breeds that they have determined are “pit bulls”, and are not the dogs that Mr. Stratton has immortalized in his books. This ruse is meant to bring our side into discussing the books, and away from the topic. They assume that everyone who owns “pit bulls” has read Richard Stratton’s books. That is an erroneous assumption. I have not read his books. Having not read his books, I can neither confirm, nor deny any point that they are trying to establish by using quotes from his, or any other author’s book. I can only state with honesty that the opinions expressed in any book, are certainly those of the author.
Know your enemy
The dog takers have done their homework thoroughly. They expect that you have not. If you find yourself in over your head, then please depart before you cause harm. Never write, or speak without giving considerable thought as to what you will say. The takers will use every opportunity to twist your words into a meaning of their choosing.
You are the only expert on yourself. You know your strengths. Use them. You know your weak areas. Do not expose them. It is okay to say, ”I don’t know.” It is far better to admit that a topic is not your area of first hand knowledge, than to forge blindly onward and cause our side to lose ground. Always stay within your own personal comfort zone of knowledge, and information. That is where each of us is strongest.
Know the law
There is nothing more traditional than animal ownership, use, and animal husbandry. The rights that are enumerated under our Bill of Rights are not our only rights. Our framers created the Constitution, and our Bill of Rights not to be all-inclusive, but to lay the foundation of law for the people of our free nation. If they had tried to list every right, and every freedom that we the people might enjoy, then surely we would be restricted. Our rights, and our freedoms are bounded only by our moral, and social obligations to have a functional society. The framers were wise beyond their time, and beyond their worldly scope. To prevent any such similar takings of our traditional property, or our animals, and to prevent the cessation of any ancient, noble, and honorable profession such as animal husbandry, they wrote: AMENDMENT IX. The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny, or disparage others retained by the people.AMENDMENT X.The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Besides these two Amendments that reaffirm our rights of traditional human occupations, we also have the right to be recompensed for any taking of our property. Our animal’s ovaries, and testicles belong to us. If the government is going to mandate a taking, it had better be prepared to PAY!!! To pay for the surgeries, for those citizens who will comply, to pay for loss of the viability of the animal, or to buy out the real property of the animal owner, whose right to its full use and enjoyment has been removed due to the government’s arbitrary removal of it purchased purpose.
Learn from every encounter
Do not join a blog, or public forum expecting to sway the animal taking extremists to our side. You will lose. They are equally as committed to their idealism, as we are committed to preserving our animals, their ownership, and our traditional animal husbandry practices. The objective is to put forward usable information that is backed up with proof, and to sway the people who are undecided. The animal taking zealots have nothing that is tangible to take. They are pushing an ideology. We, on the other hand have the tangible, living, breathing, animals that count on us to protect them. Even though our animals have no way of knowing it, they are dependent upon us for the continuation of their breed, and their gene pool to survive into the future. We cannot succeed by entering into compromise agreements with the animal taking zealots. They have nothing to offer us from their ideology. We have everything to lose. The very worst thing that anyone from the animal owner side can do is to accept any part of the opposition’s ideology. That acceptance will grow like a malignancy until it engulfs us, and our dogs, and our traditions, our way of life, our freedoms, our past, our present, or our future.
Cherie Graves, chairwoman
Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States
323922 N. Hwy. 2
Diamond Lake, WA 99156
American Staffordshire Terriers
“Home of the swinging, flying show dogs”
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” —Marcus Aurelius